This seems a no-brainer to me - why not just cut off a kid's ears instead? By way of the arguments here, they're under anaesthetic, they're just kids, so they don't feel pain(of course), they won't know till they're older and they don't need those bits anyway and nothing could go wrong that will affect them for the rest of their lives, right? Maybe a few toes too while you're at it?

Without a medical context for surgery it renders this a brutal, traumatic and unquestioning practice - on a child, no less.

However, Mr Darby, you cannot compare the circumcision of baby boys to the genital mutilation of young women. Just as unnecessary, but different in context - one is done for torture, compliance and gender-based subjugation permanently rendering a woman incapable of having a sex life and is also life-threatening - a sheer act of misogynistic, violent hatred, and the other is a redundant religious practice.

Hey Hasbeen
Speak for yourself, dude.
And runner -
Not such a silly idea. Knowing the possibility of a class action exists might stop parents mutilating their children in the future.

Hugh Intactive,
Quote, "who have a bias against circumcision" You bet I do, and against cutting off babies' earlobes and little toes and inner labia unless and until they individually badly need it".

I think most us are aware of and know about FGM, but can you give example of other surgeries carried out on infants for religous or cultural reasons. Such as you refered to above.

Thank you for an excellent article Robert.

Firstly, "Hasbeen, Monday, 16 January 2012 12:32:02 PM" your cavalier dismissal of the issue as trivial is highly offensive. If you are unable to comprehend the gross human rights violation that is infant male genital mutilation, you fail the humanity test.

I am a 43 year old man who was mutilated at the insistence of my mother shortly after birth and I deeply resent it. I only recently learned what is taken from a man by this disgusting, barbaric practice but I have lived with the effects manifest as poor penile sensitivity and dull, unsatisfying sexual experience my whole adult life.

Famed Jewish philosopher and physician Rabbi Moses Maimonides:

http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/jewish.htm

"Historically, circumcision has been touted to cure whatever disease or fear at the time was on the minds of the population." --Steven Scott

It was introduced to the West by puritans to stop children masturbating by diminishing genital sensitivity. John Kellogg (corn flakes) was a fanatical puritan who promoted numerous barbaric tortures for masturbation including circumcising boys without anaesthetic and applying pure carbolic acid to the clitorises of girls.

It failed but the fanatics were so invested in their mutilation fetish they couldn't back down so they started inventing medical claims. None have survived scrutiny and none will.

An example of their desperation:

"1953 R.L. Miller and D.C. Snyder unleash their plans to circumcise all male babies immediately after birth while still in the delivery room to prevent masturbation and provide "immunity to nearly all physical and mental illness." [Immediate circumcision of the newborn male. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1953, Jan;6(1):1-11]"

The full list:

http://sites.google.com/site/completebaby/medicalization

The HIV claim seems to be a rehash of:

"1855 Johnathon Hutchinson publishes his theory that circumcision prevents syphilis. [On the Influence of Circumcision in Preventing Syphilis. Medical Times and Gazette 1855;32(844):542-543]"

If mutilating little boys genitals is so beneficial, why is it so hard to prove?

"Circumcision is a solution in search of a problem." --Edward Wallerstein

I don't understand why people believe there is any argument for circumcision; that cannot be duplicated by proper hygiene; and, the practise of safe sex. Whoever designed the human body is arguably a lot wiser than any of the fundamentalists posting here.
Besides, if it is so protective and all else that is claimed for it; then surely it can be postponed until puberty, when the young person has some say in what is about to happen?
It's archaic, primitive and arguably as obsolete as the belief systems of proponents, who somehow believe that child molestation and or rank cruelty is okay, if it answers an ancient and very fundamentalist belief, for which there is no conclusive evidence?
With such so-called evidence as presented, being fundamentally flawed at best; and or, quite blatantly misrepresented at worst!
Little wonder educated medical professionals are overwhelmingly against this truly ignorant barbaric practise, which has nothing to recommend it in a modern society, with access to clean running water, soap and and washing implements!

As a gay uncircumcised man I can certainly vouch for the fact that the foreskin is a source of enjoyment and play for myself and with others.

My experience is that boys with foreskins learn to masturbate at an earlier age that their circumcised peers. This is because the foreskin aids sexual pleasure and makes a lot of sexual activities easier and more pleasurable.

I don't think this is a trivial matter nor do I think it is separate to the female circumcision debate. Thank God I have my foreskin - I support all efforts that leave a boy intact. If he wants to get it done later for whatever reason that's up to him. He should have the right to sue both his parents and the performing doctor if they violate his penis without consent.