Again the endless circumcision debate returns, "Circumcision benefits seen outweighing risk factors in CDC findings," (Dec. 3). Benefits outweigh risks? Not to billions of healthy, intact males worldwide. These lucky fellows benefit from foreskin's 10,000 plus neural receptors. Female partners benefit too: one study (Google Morten Frisch) found that both partners fail to enjoy satisfying sex far more often when the male is circumcised.

The African HIV/AIDS findings are under challenge, and even supporters agree that condoms, not foreskin amputation, provide the safest protection. Some also fear that circumcised men, wrongly assuming they are safe, won't use condoms.

Penile problems-uncommon, generally minor, and treatable non-surgically, make circumcision's benefits at best merely potential. Cancer? Penile is one of the rarest. Urinary tract infections?-Far more common in girls. And HIV/AIDS? Europeans, rarely circumcised, have lower rates.

Circumcision complications, often treated in doctor's offices, are inevitably under-reported. Some include infection, adhesions, and ulcers-all agonizing. Meatal stenosis may not manifest until later in life. Then there's disfigurement.

CDC's findings, perhaps are based on an American Academy of Pediatricians study that cherry-picked data, excluded circumcision opponents, and ignored foreskin's benefits. Revealingly, both CDC and AAP don't recommend universal circumcision. Why? Unnecessary surgery is unethical.