No medical association in the world recommends routine infant circumcision. None.
Technically true, but routine infant circumcision means, literally, circumcision of all newborn boys. Consider what would justify such a recommendation: there would have to be an enormous net benefit to warrant taking such a decision out of the hands of parents.
In practice, most medical associations agree that the matter is suitable for parental choice.
Medicaid spends $198 million each year on routine infant circumcision in the 33 states that still pay for it, a procedure its own guidelines consider to be medically unnecessary. Private insurance programs are reimbursing an additional $677 million, raising prices for us all (Craig 2006.)
Actually, a CDC study was published in 2010 that found that "Newborn circumcision was a cost-saving HIV prevention intervention for all, black and Hispanic males". And that study considered only one benefit. If other benefits were to be considered as well, it would obviously be more cost-saving still.
Doctors have an ethical duty to treat the patient by the most conservative means possible, but removing healthy tissue in the absence of any medical need absolutely harms the patient.
By what logic? Cannon seems to think that asserting this claim is enough, but it isn't. Removal of tissue isn't inherently harmful; nor is it inherently beneficial. It can be either; to determine which the only rational approach is to look at the consequences.
Everyone has a right to bodily autonomy and self-determination. This is a fundamental tenet of international human rights law (UNESCO 2005).
Then it needs to be determined whether circumcision represents a significant violation. Human rights are not absolute, and are not intended to be read as such. Free expression, for example, does not give a person the right to libel another. Applying common sense, could it apply to something as trivial as a foreskin? It deems doubtful.
Parents' aesthetic preferences are not valid reasons for circumcision.
This statement makes sense only if one considers circumcision to be a bad thing that requires a lot of justification. But, since it is widely accepted that circumcision is harmless at worst and beneficial at best, that position seems unsupportable. Would it make sense to demand a valid reason for feeding a child a healthy diet?
If you have never had a foreskin, you cannot possibly know what having one would feel like. You only know what it feels like to not have a foreskin. You cannot know now how your son will feel in 20 or 30 years. If you have your son circumcised, he may grow up to regret the decision you made for him, but circumcision is irreversible. (Yes, men can partially restore their foreskins, but it is difficult and the sensitive nerve endings are gone forever.)
Conversely, if you don't have him circumcised, he might regret that, too. And adult circumcision is much riskier, requires a long period of abstinence, and results in inferior cosmetic results. There's no way to guarantee that he won't resent the decision, unfortunately.
Parents have a duty to educate themselves on circumcision rather than do it just because it was done to them.
For clear, easy and plain-language help making the circumcision decision, try the Circumcision Decision Maker at http://circumcisiondecisionmaker.com/.
That website recommends non-circumcision in virtually every case (the exception, as I recall, being for Orthodox Jews). If you've already decided not to circumcise and want an excuse, use it. Otherwise, it's not recommended.
Slavery and child labor were traditions sanctioned by religions and other authorities. But we abandoned those practices because they were unjust and harmful. Infant circumcision, similarly supported by authorities, should be abandoned by the people who care for children because it is unjust and harmful.
Except, of course, that it is neither unjust nor harmful. Asserting otherwise doesn't change the facts.
You were circumcised because your dad was circumcised because everyone else was circumcised because 140 years ago, some perverted doctors wanted to stop boys from masturbating.
Probably not, but I'm sure this is impressive propaganda.
Being circumcised isn't better, and it isn't popular anymore. The 70% of the world's men who have foreskins almost never choose to have them cut off and consider them to be the best part of the penis.
According to what research?
Circumcision is ending with the generation being born now - only 32% of babies born in 2009 in the USA were circumcised.
Actually, CDC data suggest that the figure is about 55%, and they caution that this is an underestimate. And, of course, rates vary greatly across the country.