Yaakov Sternberg's answer is so misinformed and misconstrued, I am almost at a lack of words.
Circumcision is genital mutilation, an unnecessary medical procedure with a risk of complications, scarring, and death.
It is a blatant violation of bodily integrity, and flies in the face of childrens rights.
All people should have the right to decide over their own bodies.
Let me just start off by linking this: Circumcision Harmful And Unnecessary
1. The HIV-prevention myth
First, babies do not have sex.
With me so far?
Shall we next spend time on discussing the shortcomings of the studies that he refers to, how they were interrupted for gross ethical misconduct – giving people who were circumcised, condoms and instructions for how to use them, and leaving all that out for the uncircumcised "controll"-group (massive roll-eyes), and how subsequent studies found that circumcised people who thought their circumcision prevented them from contracting HIV, went on to get HIV more frequently than those who took sensible measures to prevent it?
No, we shall not, because BABIES DO NOT HAVE SEX.
But for your general knowledge, have a look at how people arrive at these idiotic health-benefit claims.
Should you circumcise your child?
2. Nevermind the origins of circumcision as mutilation to prevent masturbation.
Yeah, uh, that's kind of an intellectually dishonest and ethically bankrupt position to take.
I won't dignify that with my time, so go educate yourself with a video instead.
"The Real Reason You're Circumcised"
3. The AAP and their follow-the-money-bias
How can one be so uninformed?
- Major Pediatric Group Releases New Circumcision Guidelines
- American Academy of Pediatrics, criticism
- Cultural bias in the AAP's 2012 Technical Report … [Pediatrics. 2013]
In brief, blah blah we're getting paid for this hooray let's recommend it blah blah blah oops we're not getting paid for it anymore let's no longer recommend it but pretend that doesn't change anything
"The tone of the policy certainly shifts somewhat in favor of circumcision in that it recognizes that there are clear medical benefits that outweigh the risks of the procedure, and that those benefits are sufficient to justify coverage by insurance," said Dr. Douglas Diekema, a member of the academy's circumcision task force.
"What remains unchanged is that the AAP still holds that the health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all newborn males," he said.
The academy's previous policy statement on circumcision was released in 1999. It concluded that there were "potential" medical benefits to newborn male circumcision, but not enough to recommend it routinely.
If only people weren't so interested in money but considered ethical integrity as more important…
4. The minuscule risk of penile cancer in old, old men
Babies are not old men, and you are going to have to carry out an unnecessary, mutilating, risky procedure on thousands of healthy babies to come close to be able to reduce the risks of penile cancer.
The "benefits" are far outweighed by the risks, and again: There is no reason to force this procedure on a baby.
Unless you are an american pediatrician and can get the genital mutilation covered by insurance policies.
I could go into further detail, but *le sigh*.
How about you actually look into this issue, from a critical point of view and not just the confirmation biased one?
Here's a start: Circumcision Harmful And Unnecessary
5. Oh, and Brian Morris, the guy behind circinfo?
A circumcision fetishist.
Want to read the kind of circumcision child pornography that the Gilgal society that he belonged to, produced?
Want to see the kind of circfet images that his site, formerly hosted by the University of Sydney – before they booted that shit off their servers – linked to?
I don't think you do.
- Why does Brian Morris link his site to a circumfetish page?
- Brian J. Morris – CircLeaks
- University of Sydney, Protect your Reputation: Fire Brian Morris
Oh and further down Anonymous links to Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sen… [J Sex Med. 2013].
Which had Brian Morris as one of the two leading authors.
Not an unbiased meta-"study", methinks.