Intact America, an organization devoted to preventing circumcision, makes a powerful argument for discontinuing the practice:
There is no medical reason for "routine" circumcision of baby boys. No professional medical association in the United States or the rest of the world recommends routine circumcision. People in Europe, Asia and Latin America—where 90% of men are intact ("uncircumcised") and suffer no negative consequences—are often shocked to hear that American doctors and hospitals remove part of a boy's penis shortly after birth.
But writer Charlotte Allen argues generations of men were circumcised without long-term harmful effects. She calls it a religious freedom issue, and says we should leave the circumcision choice up to parents:
If half the new parents in America oppose the practice, they're welcome to decline it on behalf of their babies. But to make it a crime to choose circumcision—for religious, health or other reasons—would be absurd.
Some parents use the "locker-room argument" to argue circumcision is necessary so their sons' genitals will resemble those of their peers. But sex advice columnist Dan Savage doesn't buy it, especially as fewer and fewer American parents are choosing to circumcise their children. While he doesn't advocate for banning the procedure, he thinks circumcision should be left up to boys when they're old enough to decide—their bodies, their choice.
If someone wants to be circumcised, I say let him decide for himself when he's old enough.
The Locker Room Argument is a bad reason for infant circumcision http://twt.mx/RKz #i2 via @CodeNameMama