Foreskins in a jar.

Look at this. Positions of medical associations Australasia As of 2010, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians state: "After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand. However it is reasonable for parents to weigh the benefits and risks of circumcision and to make the decision whether or not to circumcise their sons."[139] Canada The Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society posted "Neonatal circumcision revisited" in 1996 and "Circumcision: Information for Parents" in November 2004. The 1996 position statement says that "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed",[138] and the 2004 information to parents says: 'Circumcision is a "non-therapeutic" procedure, which means it is not medically necessary. Parents who decide to circumcise their newborns often do so for religious, social, or cultural reasons. [. . .] After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.'[42] Finland The Finnish Medical Association opposes circumcision of infants for non-medical reasons, arguing that circumcision does not bring about any medical benefits and it may risk the health of the infant as well as his right to physical integrity, because he is not able to make the decision himself. The association emphasizes that according to the Finnish constitution, the parents' freedom of religion and conscience does not produce the right to violate other people's (children's) right to physical integrity.[183] Germany In Germany, in 2008, the German Association for Pediatric Surgery cautioned surgeons against allowing the ordering of the procedure for what could appear to be non-medical reasons.[184] International The World Health Organization and UNAIDS currently recommend circumcision as part of a comprehensive program for prevention of HIV transmission in areas with high endemic rates of HIV.[18] The Netherlands In the Netherlands, the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) stated in 2010 that non-therapeutic male circumcision "conflicts with the child's right to autonomy and physical integrity." They called on doctors to inform caregivers seeking the intervention of the (in their assessment) medical and psychological risks and lack of convincing medical benefits. They stated that there are as good reasons for legal prohibition of male circumcision as exist for female genital mutilation (FGM).[24] United Kingdom There is a spectrum of views within the BMA’s membership about whether non-therapeutic male circumcision is a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure or whether it is superfluous, and whether it should ever be done on a child who is not capable of deciding for himself. Moreover, the Association states that “there is significant disagreement about whether circumcision is overall a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure. At present, the medical literature on the health, including sexual health, implications of circumcision is contradictory, and often subject to claims of bias in research.”[23] As a general rule, the BMA believe that “parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children’s interests, and it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices.” They also state that “both parents [...] must give consent for non-therapeutic circumcision”, and that parents and children should be provided with up-to-date written information about the risks involved.[23] The BMA state that parents should be informed about the lack of consensus within the medical profession with regard to the potential health benefits of non-therapeutic circumcision, adding that they consider the evidence for such benefits to be insufficient as the sole reason for carrying out a circumcision.[23 United States In a 2012 position statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated that a systematic evaluation of the medical literature shows that the "preventive health benefits of elective circumcision of male newborns outweigh the risks of the procedure". According to the statement, the "health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns" but "are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns." The AAP takes the position that parents should make the final decision about circumcision, after appropriate information is gathered about the risks and benefits of the procedure.[185] The above statement was also endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.[185] In 2011, the AMA released policy statements that parents should be given the opportunity to make an informed choice regarding circumcision for their infant sons,[186] and opposing attempts to make circumcision illegal.[187] The American Academy of Family Physicians (2007) recognizes the controversy surrounding circumcision and recommends that physicians "discuss the potential harms and benefits of circumcision with all parents or legal guardians considering this procedure for their newborn son." The American Urological Association (2007) stated that neonatal circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks, stating that "while the results of studies in African nations may not necessarily be extrapolated to men in the United States at risk for HIV infection, the American Urological Association recommends that circumcision should be presented as an option for health benefits. Circumcision should not be offered as the only strategy for HIV risk reduction. Other methods of HIV risk reduction, including safe sexual practices, should be emphasized."[188] Now read this... "The most disturbing and alarming [controversy] is in the unethical trafficking of neonate foreskins. Not only do parents of North American baby boys have to pay between $200 to $300 to obstetricians to circumcise their boys that no sooner are the circumcised foreskins cut off that they are sold on to bio-engineering and cosmetics companies by the hospitals. The resale value of neonate foreskins is astronomically dizzying in that from one boy’s foreskin can be grown bio-engineered skin in a lab to the size of a football field. That’s 4 acres of new skin or around 200,000 units of manufactured skin, which is enough skin to cover about 250 people and sells at $3,000 a square foot. Considering that there are 1.25 million neonate foreskins circumcised each year in the U.S alone this translates to one of the most lucrative trades, if not THE most lucrative trade in human body parts ever in the history of humanity." I was conversing with the most intelligent group of women that I know this afternoon. I was shocked to learn that they stood firmly on their belief that circumcision is a necessary procedure. Although I wasn't prepared and made an admittedly weak case, I implied that the American public was being deceived into donating body parts for the profit of giant industries. My lady friends would not even entertain the notion that I might be right. This worries me. A lot of things worry me. What used to look like intelligence sometimes looks like trendy. What used to look like lunacy sometimes looks like intelligence. Sinners look like saints and saints look like satin. Do we eat meat or don't we? Why does any creature eat any creature? Is this a question of compassion or one of sacrilege? Sometimes I feel crazy. And I wonder if what I did, when I allowed the circumcision of my son, was the right thing to do. And I'm not afraid to tell you that I don't really believe that it was. And I'm not afraid to admit that if circumcision wasn't so commonly expected as the norm, I would have given it more thought. But I didn't. I behaved like a sheep. A sheep in America. Waiting for a shepherd who will only take a few. Isn't it funny? We want to be a part of the crowd. The big crowd. But in the end, He only takes a few. Think about it.