Sure. Using the same logic we can say that FGM[1] reduces chances of cancer in the removed parts. It is genuinely odd argument to make that you get less chance of a disease in an organ when you remove an organ or part thereof.
FGM is mainly an anti-sex thing, before modern contraceptives, this conformist behaviour was used to keep population levels down by making sex painful, but now we have chemicals that can do it, so its not really required now.
I know two people that had to get circumcised when they were older because of issues of the foreskin restricting urinating. Both cursed their parents for not having circumcised them when they were babies.
I am responding in good faith. It is possible that there is a genetic component, but isn't prevalence of paraphimosis about 1%[1] for males over 16. Some would say circumcision for such a small gain is not the best trade-off.
I don't necessarily disagree with you. I just know the misery these two older friends of mine went through...just to give another perspective. It makes sense though that there could be a genetic disposition.
I’m trying to imagine modern medicine converging on circumcision as a best practice, in the absence of its ritual origins, and in the absence of cosmetic concerns. But I’m still convinced it’s a retcon.
Which aspect is a retcon? I am not sure if you're taking the pro or con position
I dont see medicine converging at that. Instead, in west, it is being seen as American medical oddity no one cares about.