Circumcision came from a weird religious ritual where cutting off the foreskin was equated with a snake shedding its skin.

It was only when the religious ritual of mutilating a small boy's penis came under attack that medical 'justifications' were fudged up.

I suppose there is always some risk that intending parents might be misled by the sort of BS being spruiked by religious zealots who pretend that they can improve on nature, so here is a useful link for parents and especially mothers:

Mothers against Circumcision

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/

Celivia and Cornflower:

Whilst I would agree that the benefits of circumcision are too small to justify recommending it, similarily the risks are so low that a ban on the procedure cannot be justified either.

Nearly all the bad outcomes were performed by drunken tribal elders.

I have yet to see a single bad outcome from a qualified specialist in Australia.

My decision to have my son circumcised was prompted by a collegue of mine whose son had to have a circumcision at age 6 due to an infection under the foreskin. While you might argue that such things are rare, to me it was not, and at age 6 the op was far from fun.

While I see "mothers against circumcision" I fail to see any men complaining.

Hi Shadow Minister,
"Nearly all the bad outcomes were performed by drunken tribal elders."

How do you know this?

I looked at some links within the link that Cornflower provided, and there is heaps of info to find about complications from circumcisions that were performed by doctors.
This is one of these links:

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/

Most males in this world have not been circumcised, including all the males in my whole family, my husband's family. I have never heard that any male in my family had to have a circumcision because of an infection.

You also say, "While I see "mothers against circumcision" I fail to see any men complaining."

I was wondering too, why it is up to mothers and not to fathers to defend their son's penis, especially since there are men who are not happy with having been forced to have their foreskin cut off for no good reason and although it is irreversible, they decide to have it reconstructed as best as possible.

I am also not convinced that circumcision is less painful for a baby than for an adult. How do you know this?
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/worse.htm

And yes the best point you made is WHERE ARE THE FATHERS?

Perhaps Cornflower can answer this for you?
My guess is that women, throughout history, have always needed to fight for their rights so perhaps it comes more natural to them to stand up for their children as well?

Cornflower,

Do you have evidence that all cultures in diverse geographical locations practising it all did it for that reason? The important thing is that it is a good idea as the practical effect is similar to immunization. The snake worshippers didn’t know that but we do.

Shadow Minister,

The anti-circumcision movement is mainly driven by gay males who like to insert the end of their penises into each other and some misfits who hang onto them who have been circumcised at birth and think they are missing out on something. Some of them stretch their residual foreskin. Seriously!

Celivia,

I have a friend who doesn’t believe in immunization and all kids are fine. I still think both procedures are a good idea.

They are not defending their son’s penis they are defending a humble flap of skin on the end of it. People who get their son’s circumcised are defending the penis. It greatly reduces the (albeit already low) chance of their son getting penile cancer and needing to get it removed during treatment. However it would take a very drunk doctor to remove a penis in circumcision.

I am convinced that it is less painful for a baby. My son didn't appear to suffer significant pain. (It is nothing like immunisation in that regard.) Adult men get stitches and recently a 13yo was circumcised for medical reasons and 5 days later he was in pain. That was unusual but it happens. I have heard of similar incidents. My son looked like he had been circumcised for years after that time. Babies foreskins don’t need stitches and heal quickly.

The anti-circumcision website link regarding complications has a few things. The complication rates mentioned are 2%-10%, 15% and 55%. The American Academy of Pediatrics warn against getting information from unsubstantiated web sites. The AAP list the complication rates of infant circumcision as ranging from 0.2% to 0.6% with most being minor bleeding. Try the website of a medical research scientist for accurate information:
www.circinfo.net

Celivia,

I looked into reported cases of circumcisions going wrong, and almost without exception they were the result of "traditional" procedures. More than 50% in Australia were the result of one ritual in Pennant creek as the result (I quote) of "drunken tribal elders".

The incidents by qualified physicians is so low that there is a higher chance of the entire family being killed on the way to the hospital.

As for the benefits I would suggest you read this:

http://www.circinfo.net/penile_hygiene.html

As for the pain issue, while I am not suggesting that there is no pain in infants, there is no doubt that the nerves are more developed in an adult.

http://www.circinfo.net/pain_and_memory.html

As for the women most prefer the "crew cut" to a "polo neck" in their partners. While some are indifferent I have yet to meet anyone that prefers the polo neck.

My goodness there's a lot of rot written about circumcision (not to mention fluoridation), isn't there?

Male circumcision in various forms has been a widespread practice in many different cultures for millennia, but it was never done for 'health' reasons until very recently. It has generally been associated with rites of passage or other essentially religious purposes, but has only in the past century or so been performed ostensibly for reasons of hygiene, and even then primarily in Western societies or those that have adopted allopathic medicine. It's a favourite topic among anthropologists, and there's an extensive literature about it.

mjpb: << The anti-circumcision movement is mainly driven by gay males >>

Although I'm quite familiar with much scholarly literature that has been written about male circumcision, I've never heard this before. I don't suppose you can back up this claim with some kind of authoritative reference?

When my son was born 20 years ago, routine circumcision of male babies in Quensland hospitals was definitely out of favour, and I don't think any of the medical professionals who advised his mother and me against it was gay. The reason given was that there was no medical indication for such mutilation.