Posted: Sep 16, 2013 7:44 am
Nora_Leonard wrote:...However it was a tradition for a long time to circumcise all male infants on "hygiene" grounds, which had nothing to do with religion...
I somehow doubt the idea of routine infant male circumcision (with any justification) would have ever occurred to anyone in the first place had it not been for it's history as a religious practice. It's hardly the kind of procedure that simply suggests itself.
Think of it this way; if no culture or religion had ever had a practice of routine circumcision prior to the modern era, we probably wouldn't even have the word 'circumcision', there would simply be no need for it.
When referred to at all it would merely be called 'foreskin removal' or 'prepucectomy', and would be regarded like any other form of amputation to be done only if medically necessary. It would never have become a particular 'thing' in itself requiring it's own commonplace word, anymore than "removal of the little-toe" is.