The photo you include with your article is obviously an attempt at being clever. It isn't because it is an erroneous perception of male genitalia, which often attracts skewed humour. If you were writing about female genital cutting would you depict it a steak of salmon and a knife? Also, scissors aren't used in the very backward procedure. You have also skewed this to infer age old tradition. Theft, rape, murder, and assault have been around longer, does that make them okay? In fact these are exactly the descriptions that can be applied to "circumcision," the euphemism for genital mutilation. Anyone who performs them is not a doctor or mohel, but a quack, and they deserve every bad thing they have coming their way. Helen Salsbury is especially a quack because she is also a woman who is under the impression that boys are objects to be manipulated for profit. Jews who perform it aren't following the Torah which asks that we do no harm to any living thing, which is exactly what genital mutilation does. Eighty five percent of men internationally are intact and living proof that "circumcision" is a lie. Any reference to disease prevention is also dissipated as the human race would have died out long ago if the HIV/cancer scares were true. "Circumcision" is the cycle of male sexual abuse, and those who want to repeat the cycle for profit are in denial, otherwise they wouldn't get so angry or defensive every time they are questioned.