Circumcision debate - again

Yes - I'm talking about circumcision again. This time I'd like to talk about the health aspects. I'm not even going to go into the flaws in the Africa studies, because, quite frankly, it's a moot point anyway. Are we really going to advocate that people chop off a part of a child's penis to lessen their chance of catching an STD? Really? One in eight women will develop breast cancer in their lives - ONE IN EIGHT!!! I haven't heard anyone jumping up and shouting that the cure for breast cancer would be to give all pubescent girls radical mastectomies. No one says that because it's ABSURD. It's absurd, and breast cancer isn't nearly as easy to prevent as STDs. In many, many cases there may really be no prevention anyway, and yet - no one is screaming radical mastectomies for pubescent girls. Why on Earth are we advocating cutting off a healthy, functional part of a boy's body because it may possibly cause a slight reduction in diseases that are much more reliably prevented with a little thing called - wait for it - A CONDOM?!?! Give me a freaking break already. I have five children. They are all intact, and I think I would gladly chop off the hand of someone trying to circumcise any of them. Please tell me which two of these four children deserve to have their genitals messed with without their permission? Why do two of them have less rights than the other two?