I read Katherine's links, which I found to be very good, especially the first one.
I personally am against Circumcision. But I didn't vote yet, since I find the wording of "barbaric and inhumane" too strong (guess I'll probably take this option still).
And I live in a society, were C. is pretty unusual. In Germany, Jewish and Muslim boys undergo C., and there are medical reasons for it (phimosis, but even this is in discussion) and that's it. I've seen only one circumcised man in my life.
Some arguments which were brought up:
1)
C. lessens the risk of HIV infections: first, there is not much statistic material yet. For example, many people believe that C. prevents women of circumcised men from cervix cancer. This theory was proven by a study in the 1950ies - but no study ever managed to repeat the results of this study. That study has compared Jewish women to women married to uncircumcised men. Today's scientific assumption is that the lifestyle of the Jewish men and women was simply different (less sexual partners overall).
(Additional note: I've read this on German medical info pages, I don't have any English sources for it. You can either believe it, or look it up yourself, or decide to not believe it)
Even if C. lessens the risk for HIV to a good deal (most sources speak of 60%), it is not a safe method for preventing HIV infection by any means. Additional protection is needed (condoms). Therefore, mass C. could backfire by the way of less cautious behaviour. The negative effects of less cautious sexual behaviour could outdo the positive effects of mass C.
The countries mass C. is recommended for, are among the poorest with bad medical standards. Therefore the medical risks of C. would be much higher than they are in more developed countries. Thus the positive effects for general health of a society could be outdone by infections directly caused by C.
2)
Health benefits apart from the relatively new HIV protection discussion: I personally agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics:
Quote from the article in Slate (
http://www.slate.com/id/2124770/, K's link)
According to the latest policy statement on circumcision by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the potential medical benefits of snipping aren't great enough to recommend it routinely.
3)
Sons should not look different from their father: Why?
To be honest, this argument astonishes me the most. It would never have come to my mind if my husband were circumcised (again: I live in a society where C. is very unusual, so maybe the thought would have occurred to me if I were American).
Little boys do look different from their fathers anyway (and daughters from their mothers). The genitalia of children look different from the ones of adults.
And children look different from their parents in so many ways: blonde hair/dark hair; blue eyes/brown eyes; you name it. So what is the reason boys should not look different from their fathers regarding C.?
Additionally, I read that most C. on newborns in the US are still done without anesthesia (55%, according to wikipedia). I think this is cruel.
Apart from all (more or less) scientific arguments, my feeling is that the foreskin is there for a reason. I don't think half of mankind is born defective (the above mentioned article voices the same thought).
You don't mess with your child's physical inviolability unless you have to. I personally would also not get earpiercings done for a small child.
I see K's last post in the preview: the thought of Jack and OMT came also to my mind