“Dr. Anthony Chin, a Los Angeles-based obstetrician, points out that circumcision does make it easier to keep the penis clean,” – trivially so: it takes seconds, and as Penn Teller pointed out, it’s not difficult to get boys to handle their penises.

“…and decreases the chances of infection.” – Maybe, but from what, to what? Bear in mind too, that many of those infections are caused by meddling, retracting the foreskin (which is usually securely attached to the glans at birth, and may not separate for years) before it is ready. US doctors are generally taught nothing about the foreskin except how to cut it off, so that’s what they prescribe.

“Let’s face it, boys aren’t the cleanest of genders,” – This is some of the shortsightedness that pervades the discussion. They will be boys for about 15 years, men for about 55, with, as Paul points out, their own opinions on the matter.

“sometimes an uncircumcised child decides to have the procedure done later in life.” – Yes, and sometimes he decides to put rings in his ears, eyebrows, nose, lips, tongue, nipples, navel and/or genitals, so should we do that at birth on the off-chance he will decide to have those procedures done, too? (And if he changes his mind, he can take those out and the holes will close over, unlike circumcision.)

“In the US, women seem to prefer a circumcized penis,” – One study of new mothers, most of whom knew no other kind, seemed to show that, but it was statistically weak and clearly slanted. Many women in the US and worldwide prefer men who still have all they were born with: who are we to second-guess them?
“…and there are plenty of teenagers who get circumcised for cosmetic reasons.” – Or for conformity and an artificial fear of rejection. Whatever happened to “If they were all jumping off a cliff…”?

“A 5-minute procedure as an infant is easier than the same procedure on an adolescent or adult.” – This assumes it will inevitably be done sooner or later. Why assume that? Actually, any mistake on a baby’s penis will grow with it, but distorted, like writing on a balloon before blowing it up, instead of after.

“The claim that circumcision causes tremendous pain is simply not true, says Steinhardt.” – Then why is circumcision used as a benchmark for pain studies? Numerous studies have shown that the pain of circumcision is intense, and one found that it affects the reaction to the pain of vaccination, months later. He may not remember it, but how long does it take him to forget?

““In general, it’s a pretty harmless procedure. It’s well tolerated, it’s done with great care, and complications are rare and few and far between.” – But in particular, the complications can be severe, up to and including death, and it’s your particular baby they will be circumcising. And it may be “done with great care” but often by an intern as part of their training. Why is Dr Steinhardt so keen on selling the procedure? Would he be so dismissive of the complications of any other surgery? Why do you quote this single ardent advocate at such length?

“many babies just sleep right through the procedure.” – Or rather, they go into shock.

“A local anesthetic can be used to ensure a painless circumcision.” – It wears off, and despite your best efforts, he experiences the pain of urine in an open wound for a week or two afterwards.

And first things last: “To circumcise or not to circumcise”? That is not the question. Hamlet was contemplating suicide, that’s why he equated being and not being. How about “To cut part of his genitals off or to just leave him alone”? In that case, the answer would be so clear it was hardly worth asking.

Such pain with erection and sexual intercourse for both men and women is only caused by infant circumcision. What man would consent to this experience, destructive from infancy through every subsequent stage of life?

Only a mercenary sadist would do this to another person. It is not a medical act.

The only remedy for this is foreskin restoration; about 120,000 men are presently restoring their foreskins and are very happy about it as are their wives. Millions of others have never heard about it and will continue to live out unhappy sexual experiences.

All this to satisfy “cultural” or “cosmetic” appearance on an unconsenting, powerless individual, right after his birth? What is cosmetic about an injury? Injuries look disturbing and are saddening, on penises and every other part of the body. Causing any injury is not a medical act.

The bottom line is it’s HIS body, and morally it’s HIS decision whether to lose about half his specialized pleasure-recpetive nerve endings.

When it becomes relevant to him, he can decide based on the best evidence THEN available. As of today, not one national medical association of doctors on earth (not even Israel’s) endorses routine circumcision.

Canadian Paediatric Society
http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/fn/fn96-01.htm
“Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.”

http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/pregnancy&babies/circumcision.htm
“Circumcision is a ‘non-therapeutic’ procedure, which means it is not medically necessary.”
“After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.”

Royal Australasian College of Physicians
http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=B5610716-9E3E-6C97-A8D87880FD002E3B
“After extensive review of the literature, the Paediatrics & Child Health Division of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians has concluded that there is no medical reason for routine newborn male circumcision.”
(almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. “Routine” circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)

British Medical Association
http://www.bma.org.uk/ethics/consent_and_capacity/malecircumcision2006.jsp#Circumcisionformedicalpurposes
“to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate.”

drops in male circumcision:
USA: from 90% to 57%
Canada: from 48% to 32%
UK: from 35% to about 5% (about 1% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.6% (“routine” circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states except one, so the rate will now be a lot lower)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%

In reality, male non-therapeutic circumcision is an injurious and unnecessary irreversible operation that amputates large quantities of erogenous tissue from the penis and contributes to sexual and emotional problems in adult life.