Well, you've given it an interesting context to start off on: infant male circumcision. Do I support such barbary? Absolutely not.
More generally, people can get circumcised if they want when they are of an adult age.
Having had this argument many times before, I am always countered by pro-circumcision folks with the following: circumcision reduces the risk of contracting STI x, therefore it is right to do it to a child. My response is that if, as a sexually active adult, they wish to modify their foreskin to achieve this effect, then they're free to; at least let them make the decision for themselves. A child has no need for their foreskin to be removed as they're not yet sexually active.
This, of course, says nothing of the correlations drawn in contradicting studies, the simple fact that regularly cleaning smegma beneath the foreskin works just as well, and that using condoms is still the safest non-abstinent method of reducing STI's.
This is an argument I have held regularly because I am completely against the mutilation of genitals for religious or pseudoscientific purposes, whether it be done to a male or a female.
Last edited by Ligeia; 02-05-2010 at 11:45 AM.