Two years ago I read on the informative website www.circinfo.org/ that the bit of skin removed “...is now known as the frenular delta and is understood to support one of the body’s densest concentrations of fine-touch nerve receptors, whose specific function is to detect and transmit pleasurable touch.”
Now who in their right mind would want to deny a male child that?
Addressing health scares and the possibility that circumcision decreases the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, it can be argued that such scares have no part to play in the debate on routine infant male circumcision. Infants are not sexually active.
When the child grows to maturity, he can then choose to become circumcised or not. He may prefer to practice safe sex and/or to know his partner. But until then, the rights of the child take precedence over the fears of the parent.
This includes their religious fears.
Finally I wonder why it is that cutting a girl is acknowledged as barbaric while cutting a boy is not.

How can so many spend so much time worrying about something so little, & of so little importance?

@hasbeen: In some countries, people make similar comments about female cutting. What you describe as "something so little, & of so little importance" contains the most sensitive parts of the male genitalia. It's not just there to protect the glans. (even on a circumcised man, the glans isn't the most sensitive part - it's normally the scar line, or the frenulum if that wasn't removed)

Why is it illegal to cut the prepuce off a baby girl, but not illegal to cut the prepuce off a baby boy?

Most intact men would be mad as heck if they were forcibly restrained and circumcised, so why is it considered acceptable to do it to children?

Everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want parts cut off their genitals. It's *their* body, so let *them* decide whether it's important or not.

I am 66 years old. As far as my doctor can tell, I am in good health though he does suggest less red wine and somewhat lower weight. Well, he would say that wouldn't he?

I was circumcised as a baby as were all the men in my family; i.e. my father, uncles, brother and grandfather. I don't remember anythig about the operation nor does it seem to have affected me emotionally or psychologically. (My wife and children might want to differ on that). So, let's leave the matter to individual families rather than intruding even further into the lives of ordinary,law-abiding citizens.

The author would gain a lot more credibility if he spoke against female circumcism. Why he makes such a big issue over a harmless and possibly beneficial practice is bewildering. Soon we will have a club of men taking court action against their parents for having them circumcised as babies.

There are so many excuses for what is essentially a cultural practice.

That crazed zealot Dr John Harvey Kellogg suggested it was a remedy to stop masturbation and others say it was the result of WW1 troops coming home with infections caused by the desert sand (actually rampant syphilis).

There are and endless number of excuses for what is essentially an act of multilation performed without consent and for dubious reasons.

If it's such a great medical idea, why not perform it under general anaesthestic and whip out that potentially troublesome appendix and those tonsils at the same time?