Socially acceptable amputation: circumcision

While some amputations may be considered freaky, others are quite socially acceptable, if not desirable.
That is circumcision.

Advocates for circumcision provide numerous weird arguments, most of them ridiculous.

The main is usually hygiene. As if missing foreskin eliminates the necessity to wash your privates. This is like armpits: remove the hair or not, they will smell if not washed. Genital hygiene is proper and regular cleaning, not removing foreskin.

Another argument is the foreskin being vestigial. Like ancient men run around jungle, and the added protection was essential. Modern men do not run around woods naked anymore, and that makes the foreskin rudimentary. Well, amateur darvinists, why limit yourself with circumcision? Humans do not have to climb around trees like monkeys anymore, so remove your fingernails! Scientists can’t tell what appendage is for and tend to think it’s also rudimentary, so remove at once to fool peritonitis! Little fingers are also considered insignificant to perform most functions, so go cut them off!

The tradition argument is also very popular. My father and the father of his father were circumcised, and so am I, and so will be my son! That’s how we roll! Don’t stick out, son! Well, such approach reminds me of treating kids like fancy dogs. Some dog breed standards require the puppies to have their tails and ears cut, for the traditional look. Go cut your kids to the standard.

Of course, the religious merit is also here, how can we escape that. While Qur’an doesn’t tell anything about circumcision, but Muslims still practice it, the Bible directly expects adepts to remove foreskin. That is obligatory for Judaism as part of covenant with God, but since the agreement was never cancelled in the Bible, that means true Christians also should cut themselves. Apostle Paul words on the topic should be ignored, as his line manager, the God himself, is definitely pro-circumcision.
The Bible describes, how the Lord said go down, Moses, tell old Pharaoh…well you know the drill Moses was so enthusiastic to fulfill the quest, that he almost forgot to cut his newborn son’s foreskin on the eight day, as the covenant says. And Moses, the God’s tool, was severely punished by failing to fulfill the agreement.
Why Moses was reluctant to circumcise his son? Because the child is in pain and fever for several days after, that would definitely slow Moses down in his quest. Yes, circumcision is causing great pain to your own children. I don’t know what parent would voluntarily cause pain to off-springs.
Moreover, recent studies indicate that circumcised babes have greater risk of inflammation, and foreskin helps natural protection and cleansing of penis head. Removing it in fact enables the need for special hygiene treatment, as the organ can’t clean and protect itself no more. Quite the opposite to the first argument! Circumcised children have a much higher risk of development defects,sexual problems and other complications.

The worst part of circumcision in that it cannot be reversed. Your son may want to switch religions when he grows up, as no one asks for confirmation from a baby. With effort, that could probably be done, but he won’t be able to regrow foreskin. That is unfair and repressive. Circumcision is not a required medical procedure, that is essentially a cosmetic surgery. And cosmetic surgery requires consent of the recipient.
But if you’re a traditionalist and don’t encourage too much freedom for your children, and think that you know better, consider this:
If God created man in his own image, but still requires circumcision, does that mean the God’s created a reject or does that mean that God himself has flaws?