LIMITING POSTERITY OUTSIDE THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT

Well, I have always said its "survival of the spiritual fittest".  This article would tend to corroborate that viewpoint.

There is a far greater reduction in STDs and general sexual health in males without foreskins.  Many of these STDs, when transmitted to female partners, result in a massive increase in problems conceiving and bearing children.  So, if you want to ensure that your chosen and covenant people want to be numbered greater than the sands of the seas, one way to ensure it is to add a foreskin as part of the male sexual organs and then require that a certain group remove it as a sign that they are the covenant people - OUCH!  My two sons had theirs lobbed off at birth - and my wife refused to let it happen to any succeeding sons because she did not like to see them cry.  I have very faint memories of my experience (as in NONE), so I leaned the other way.  Why not?  It is a useless accessory - and it might just NOT make God angry.  We ended up having two girls after that, so marital discord was avoided over the issue.  My wife had the heels pretty dug in on that one....

So, if you want your name to continue on and continue through the annals of history (what heathen would opt for that - especially as an adult??), keep lobbin' them off.  This article explains why its a good thing:

ATLANTA (CBS Atlanta) -- A new study claims that the decline in male circumcisions performed on newborn males could lead to a $4 billion increase in health care costs for American men and women.
The study, published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine on Aug. 20, found that male circumcisions played an integral role in reducing infections for men and their sexual partners.
Male circumcision is a surgical procedure, usually performed at birth, that removes a portion of – or the entirety of – the foreskin from the penis.
However, over the past 20 years, the rate at which the procedure is performed has declined from 79 percent to 55 percent, according to research conducted by a team including Drs. Kevin D. Frick, Charlotte A. Gaydos and Aaron A. R. Tobian, as well as Seema Kacker, BS.

“Our economic evidence is backing up what our medical evidence has already shown to be perfectly clear,” Tobian, the author’s study and an assistant professor of epidemiology and pathology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, said in a written statement, according to CBS News. “There are health benefits to infant male circumcision in guarding against illness and disease, and declining male circumcision rates come at a severe price, not just in human suffering, but in billions of health care dollars as well.”
The results could lead to an increased need for medical care.
“Reducing the [male circumcision] rate to 10 percent will increase lifetime health care costs by $407 per male and $43 per female,” a summary of the study indicated. “Continued decreases in [male circumcision] rates are associated with increased infection prevalence, thereby increasing medical expenditures for men and women.”
Specific viruses and infections were of concern to those conducting the study.
“Lifetime prevalence of [HIV] infection among males is expected to increase by 12.2 percent, …high- and low-risk human papillomavirus by 29.1 percent, … herpes simplex virus type 2 by 19.8 percent, … and infant urinary tract infections by 211.8 percent,” researchers discovered.
Similar spikes in HPV are anticipated in women, as well as an increase in the number of reported cases of bacterial vaginosis.
The study utilized a Monte Carlo simulation – algorithms that draw from random sampling of data to compile results – to analyze the effects of decreased circumcisions throughout the lifetimes of both men and women.