The Royal Australian College of Physicians:

"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.

Summary
In our community today, there are some people who strongly favour, and many who are strongly opposed to, circumcision of boys. Parents need to be aware that there are conflicting points of view about the risks as well as the possible benefits of circumcision. If circumcision is to be performed, parents and their doctor should ensure that it is done by an experienced and competent person using an appropriate anaesthetic.

To reduce the risks and the discomfort for the child, the operation is best performed under a general anaesthetic after the age of six months."

http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=D7FAA93E-E091-4209-15657544BA419672

The 'conflicting views' of circumcision exist among lay people. The RACP has no doubts that it is an unnecessary procedure. Why would anyone like to roll the dice for a general anaesthetic for an infant? To the risks of circumcision must be added the risks of anaesthesia, even if that is local anaesthesia (not recommended by the RACP).

mjpb: << Perhaps CJ can check whether more than one person had that theory >>

Actually, that's one theory I'd heard about prior to reading this increasingly silly thread. I'll be happy to provide some references if you'd care to provide some substantiation for your claim that opposition to male circumcision derives primarily from gay men, and that this is "well known".

I say it's not well known. Who are these "prime movers" that you think we should know about?

My bet is that your theory is only "well known" among the narrow confines of your religion. Prove me wrong.

Is anybody else here aware that opposition to routine male circumcision is being orchestrated by gay men?

Celivia, "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?"

What is all of that about? It is as relevant to circumcision as circumcision is to fluoridation - ie., not at all.

The circumcision decision is easily made on scientific facts available from the medical profession and hospitals and the emphatic answer is "No".

SM
“the first few days has the least pain...”
Yes, I agreed with that. But I want to make clear that I do not agree that the level of pain should be the guide for when to circumcise. Medical evidence should.

“…pro freedom of choice….
Me thinks that people, who are pro freedom of choice, would be appalled that babies are forced to undergo this mutilation for no good reason at all.

“A woman does not require any input or approval from a man to have an abortion. A man can express an opinion, but it is just that.”
That’s right. And men are very welcome to have circumcisions if they want to. But they should not force babies to have the procedure done because they are too young to give consent.

Mjbp,
“Men who become clean cut as adults…enjoy sex more.”
But men who are circumcised as adults would only opt for this if they’ve had sexual problems. They are special cases, cases with problems.
The vast majority of males have not been circumcised and have not had problems. We have evolved and reproduced like mad without circumcisions. We now have a population of over 6 billion, so apparently, men haven’t had too many disadvantages sexually from not being circumsised.

”… my friend’s views on immunization are like your views on the current topic – misguided not malicious.”
OK. But it’s also rather harsh to ignore the fact that unimmunised children are a danger to newborn babies and to people with a weakened immune system.

CJ
”Is anybody else here aware that opposition to routine male circumcision is being orchestrated by gay men?”
News to me, CJ; I assumed that circumcision mostly was orchestrated by primitive cultures and religious leaders who wanted to have some control over the social and sexual behaviour of people, or for some other bizarre reason, and that PEOPLE, because they have access to proper medical information, have come to the realisation that routine circumcision is unnecessary.

Cornflower
”What is all of that about? It is as relevant to circumcision as circumcision is to fluoridation - ie., not at all”.
So are you saying that YOU can make irrelevant posts but I shouldn’t? Lol!
I just couldn’t resist rubbing in that women, who stand up for their rights, don’t necessarily suffer from foreskin-envy.

The circumcision decision is easily made on scientific facts...and the emphatic answer is "No".
And that, Cornflower, I can fully agree with.

Celivia

Fair enough, thanks.