Circumcision - Wikipedia
Opponents of non-therapeutic circumcision claim infant circumcision infringes upon the individuals bodily rights, is medically unjustified and it adversely affects sexual pleasure. Circumcision advocates claim it is a worthwhile public health measure that has no substantial effects on sexual function and has a low complication rate when properly done.
The American Medical Association stated in 1999: "Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice."
The World Health Organisation (WHO; 2007), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; 2007), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2008) state that evidence indicates that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex, but also state that circumcision only provides partial protection and should not replace other interventions to prevent transmission of HIV.
The American Medical Association defines “non-therapeutic” circumcision as the non-religious, non-ritualistic, not medically necessary, elective circumcision of male newborns. It still advocates that medical associations in the US, Australia, and Canada do not recommend the routine non-therapeutic circumcision of newborns.
Circumcision advocates argue that circumcision prevents infections and slows down the spread of AIDS. Opponents of circumcision question the ethical validity of removing healthy, functioning genital tissue from a minor, arguing that infant circumcision infringes upon individual autonomy and represents a human rights violation.
What do you think?