Doctors refuse to perform circumcisions

Infant circumcision is itself a religious freedom violation. It is imposing an irreversible religious symbol on an individual who cannot give consent and who may not wish to follow the religion of his parents. An adult man can always be circumcised if he wishes to follow a certain religion but can never be uncircumcised if he does not. Infant circumcision is immoral.

"A new study published Monday in Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies estimates that more than 100 baby boys die from circumcision complications each year in the USA."

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/04/prweb3929634.htm

Doctors should "cause no harm". Circumcision causes harm.

the circumcision of girls is forbidden, so it must be the same for boys if there is no medical reason to do so, because it's against child's will. I agree with Hoath, that if a grown man wants to get circumcision, then it's ok.

Hoath - well said!

They should go to religious doctors, Christian-Jews-Islamic doctors. Because They all would perform it. Jesus was circumcised on the 8 days,Jews do this Muslims as well.

These atheist doctors should be out of this business, unless government says so a few doctors cant say for all.

@Hoath

many girls die by giving a birth to child, many drivers die while driving.

so it does not mean you stop this by mistake of a few doctors. many die from mistakes.

read the circumcised benefits Google it.

To Per Johansson52

I have read a lot of opinions of different doctors about circumcision, and no one said, that it has any benefits and most of the benefits are just myths.

Doctors are not about tales(religion) they are about knowledge of human body.

It's almost the same like some extremely religiuos peoplew ho think, that they have some illness and they don't need to go to doctor, because god will help them.It's ok if those people die, but sometimes their religinion leads to their children death.

I have a good hatchet.

Maybe I could start a business performing circumcisions.

@ Per Johansson52

There is no need for religeous fundementalism in the medical profession.

Nemesis Oh no, you again! let me tell you women likes circumcised men. But you do not, I know u would say this.And before these doctors they were religious doctors who performed the Jesus Christ operation and they are still. the parents should report doctors.

Circumcision and HIV: The AIDS Virus

Most HIV infection is via the foreskin according to UNAIDs.

http://www.circinfo.net/hiv_the_aids_virus.html

These doctors should educate themselves.

This is utterly an abuse of power by Swedish doctors.

@Hoath; Stupidity is also irreversible yet we still see lots of people going about their stupid business.

Just because you get some one pregnant or give birth, does not mean you "own" that child. They are a person in their own right. Parents should not have the right to have a part of their childs body removed because of religous beliefes. If it is for medical reasons and needs to be done then fair enough. But everyone should have the right to decide for themselves what happens to their body. If they decide, when old enough to make the decision, that they want to be circumsised, then that is up to them. But like some one has already said, what if when these children grow up they decide they would have preferred not to have been circumsised, they can't reverse it.

To say it's wrong to circumsise girls and not boys is sex discrimination.

people can fight about moral side of the situation as much as they want, but nobody can deny the economical side: if doctors perform surgeries out of cosmetic and religious reasons, they will have less time and resources to treat those who really need treatment. Thus, this kind of surgeries should be paid from their own pocket and not from the pockets of regular taxpayers.

Shaarila means only uncircumcised men pay tax.

The operation should not be allowed until a person reaches the age of consent, and then it is elective surgery for which the patient should pay.

#Per Johansson52

Just as a matter of precision, you refer to 'the Jesus Christ operation', whereas there was no requirement in the early christian church and/or the teachings of Jesus (other than that stated in Paul's ? writings) for circumcision. It follows, therefore, that this was not a 'Jesus Christ' operation.

In the days of much poorer personal and food hygeine it could well have been sensible to build in such traditions as circumcision or not eating pork in areas like The Middle East, however, nowadays washing machines,showers,food controls considerably minimise such threats in western countries.

This is Sweden. Children have rights and amongst them is the right to own their own body and not have procedures forced upon them in the name of imported traditions.

I find it interesting that people are lobbying for the right of the child to decide whether or not he gets circumcised, yet I'm sure these same people would fight for a woman's right to end this same child's life. Hmm...

@ Trowbridge,

Your situation is not unique, and I highly doubt it can be related to circumcision. I have quite a few friends who also "rejected" their mothers, and/or experienced extended bedwetting without being circumcised, and I have some friends who went thru the surgery and suffered no problems whatsoever. Feeding problems and bedwetting are relatively normal, in both boys and girls. And it can happen for any number of reasons, and at any time in a baby's growth.

I'm not saying that circumcision didn't trigger these responses in YOUR life, but you can't say this surgery has an as traumatic effect on all who undergo it.

I would be disagree in religiously point of view if it says wrong. But religion is right! these little doctors reading two books things we know all.

I ask anybody to search for its benefits before the attack religion.

Circumcised Dicks are better in sex, It is cleaner with shinny head ;). Easy to suck, no dirt under foreskin, responds time is quicker =) . again check its benefits. Nobody asked this kid if you wanna come to this world? so do not ask him just cut his foreskin and make his girlfriend/wife happy.

2Per Johansson52: Shaarila is implying that tax payers shouldn't pay for what only a number of people enjoy from religious, cultural or sexual perspective. Healthcare money should be used for healthcare and if anyone wants something extra, they should have a right to pay and get it.

Each year there are around 40.000 abortion in Sweden and guess what,.? the Swedish tax payers still have to flip the bill for that so why the double standard?

Good point peropaco!

@peropaco: Because an unwanted pregnancy lowers the quality of life of the person pregnant. It's instrumental that an unwanted fetus is aborted. On the other hand a circumcision arguably lowers the quality of life for the child itself and definitely of the people who miss treatment because of it. It's up to doctors to increase quality of life in patients - not lower it.

@Kaethar. Yes, still, we the tax payer still have to pay for someone reckless behaviour. (rape and incest victims excluded) Following your explanation one could ascertain that it is ok to kill a child, yet it is not ok to slice off a piece of skin.

Kaethar,

I am more worried about the un-barn who are getting murdered by these Murderer Doctors in the name of "abortion." Actually they murder them before they come to this world.

May Allah punish them for their crimes against humanity!

They kill the little Sweet baby who are waiting to come to this world and say "Mama." very sad!

About taxes: I will not ask tax-office what gender or nationality you spend my money. When I jobless I would get paid so that is not my business as long they spend it in proper way. So Circumsition is good.It would keep the man's private part cleaner and healthier.

I would even donate to the hospital if Nemesis open it LOL.

It's illegal to cut the prepuce off a baby girl, so why don't boys get the same protection?

Everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want parts of their genitals cut off. It's *their* body.

@Per Johansson52 #4

"many girls die by giving a birth to child, many drivers die while driving."

Thoughtful argument, I like it.

Thanks for posting!

@ Newyork-Växjö

Damn exceptional baby if it can say "mama" as soon as it's heads popped out.

The worlds overpopulated as it is & I can think of nothing worse than being an unwanted baby.

Circumcision does not keep a mans private parts cleaner & healthier, that process is called hygiene or for the uneducated among us, getting a wash.

If you're born with it then you're meant to have it. If you're religious, why would God have put it there for it to be removed? Foreskin is natural and if there is no medical reason to remove it then it should stay there. Some traditions should stay in the past - it is 2010; let's move on.

@LailaC1 Comment No: 22

"If you're born with it then you're meant to have it. If you're religious, why would God have put it there for it to be removed?"

This is one of the most ridiculous arguments that I have ever read since I was born. I wonder how come such oafish elements like you didn't disappear with the disappearance of the dinosaurs.

I will use your words to shut you up:

- Why would God have put armpit hair to be removed?

- Why would God have put nails to be cut?

... etc

I swear that sometimes I am completely astonished by how come such people survive at schools, work and life in general. Huh? I guess they are lucky :)

I disagree with the notion of "unwanted babies" most western nations are net baby importers, and as far as overpopulation is concerened if thats true why are European governments such as France and Germany offering incentives to women to reproduce? Is Sweden overpopulated? are poor Swedish babies starving? I not sure about circumcision but I recognize international marxism when I see it, and don't like it.

Doctors iN sweden are like all sweds they think that sweden is always right!!, The UN and WHO as well as the britisgh and American medical ass, ALL recomend male Circumsition as a way to prevent desece spreding, The uS Marines as far back as WWII made it a condition of enlistment,

But sweden always knows best........................................Lol

Parents always decide better for their children and will never like to get their children in pain or disease. Have you ever seen a school boy hiding from vaccination? Should we leave them on their choice? No, we will never allow them to grow up and decide whether they would like to get vaccinated or not.

How can we think of our children getting HIV? Isn't it better to get our boys circumcised them in early childhood? Since male circumcision is highly effective in HIV prevention (if some one has doubt can search for WHO, United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS or other research studies).

If it is the matter of choice for the child to grow up and decide, he will never ever like to get circumcision because of psychological fear of pain or other such!

The anteater is out this season, the bald look is in! Hilarious discussion.

"Doctors iN sweden are like all sweds they think that sweden is always right!!, The UN and WHO as well as the britisgh and American medical ass, ALL recomend male Circumsition as a way to prevent desece spreding, The uS Marines as far back as WWII made it a condition of enlistment,

But sweden always knows best........................................Lol"

Actually, no medical organization in the world recommends infant circumcision. The WHO only recommends it for countries that have a large heterosexual HIV epidemic, which is only Africa.

"But circumcision may not make much difference in transmission among men in Western countries for a number of reasons, according to Deborah A. Gust and her colleagues at the CDC.

One factor could be the fact that many HIV-positive people in developed countries are on powerful HIV drugs that reduce the chances of transmission, and may outweigh any effects of circumcision.

The researchers also note that other CDC scientists have concluded, based on their own studies, that circumcision would likely have only a "limited" impact on HIV transmission in the U.S. "

Incidentally, Sweden is among one of the healthiest countries in the world, fourth healthiest in fact, and also maintains one of the lowest percentages of HIV in the World, far lower than the United States. In fact, the list of the 10 healthiest countries does not include a single country that routinely circumcised (http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-healthy-countries-map.html). Sweden has never circumcised infants and has managed just fine. Better than fine, actually.

To Mr. Ford, So sorry to hear of your early struggles. Personally, I because a whacked out socialist who hates vanilla ice cream... all of it because I was circumcised as an infant. Also, I once got a low grade in math class. If only I had my foreskin! Well, at least I won't get penile cancer, which has an incidence of 0% among circumcised males. So, a little cut as an infant can save you from a bigger cut later on.

"Well, at least I won't get penile cancer, which has an incidence of 0% among circumcised males. So, a little cut as an infant can save you from a bigger cut later on."

You are 100% wrong. Circumcised men can and do get penile cancer. Circumcision is a risk reduction, not a risk eliminator. Here is what the American Cancer Society says:

"In weighing the risks and benefits of circumcision, doctors consider the fact that penile cancer is very uncommon in the United States, even among uncircumcised men. Neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics recommends routine circumcision of newborns just for medical reasons."

Men are more likely to get breast cancer than penile cancer. Penile cancer is a cancer of old age that effects only 1 in 100,000 men.

A new study on the rates of infant death in the US from complications of circumcision says " This study finds that approximately 117 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, " Now, 9 out of 100,000 is still a small number, but nevertheless larger than the risk of dying of penile cancer.

Saab, don't lie...there are no medical evidences, that a circumcision prevents penile cancer ( http://www.cancer.org).

Poor children who get mentally/physically abused by their idiotic parents....

The trials that the HIV circumcision campaign is based on had the following results:

After the trial period the infection rated for circumcised men was 0.85% and the intact group was 2.1 %. for infection transmission from women to men. The 60% reduction sounds big on its own but the reduction is for a route of infection that is hard in the first place. The actual net reduction is only 1.25%.

What is not being advertised is that there was a second set of trials that tested the transmission for HIV infection from men to women (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8154134.stm) which had the following results:

After the trial was halted early the infection rates were: Women infected by their circumcised partners, 18% but women infected by their intact partners was only 12%. Circumcision actually increased the infection rate by 6%.

Given the results of these trials, circumcision, for every infection it stops, will actually cause five more.

This would be bad enough on its own but...

The trials could not be said to be un-bias as they were conducted by researchers who had been trying to find a disease for circumcision to 'cure' for years before the HIV research. The trials were weighted against the uncircumcised men. During the trial period the circumcised men had to abstain from sexual contact for one and a half months while the circumcision healed because, as everybody accepts, having an open wound on the penis massively increases the risk of infection. If they couldn't abstain for the full 6 weeks the participants had to use a condom, for which all the circumcised men received information. On this proven method of infection prevention the uncircumcised men received no such automatic training.

Circumcision is just giving men a false sense of security and will lead to more unsafe sexual practices without even being a help in itself. The industrialised nation with the highest HIV infection rate is the industrialised nation with the highest circumcision rate: the USA.

There's a very good, well documented and urgent reason for all infant boys to be circumcised. Study after study has shown that circumcised men are at 70% less risk of contracting AIDS from unprotected intercourse than uncircumcised men. Circumcision may be a real lifesaver. It's hard to see how doctors of all people could ignore this.

""Now we have to go out and find someone who is willing to perform the operations. ... We respect the doctors' position," said Lars-Göran Moberg, head of the region's healthcare committee to GP."

If they respected the doctors' position, they WOULDN"T got out and find someone else. Suppose the babies were girls. Would they then look for someone to cut their genitals (even minimally, surgically, painlessly)? No! They'd tell the parents that it is illegal and that's the way it is in this country. (It may even be illegal to take the girls to another country for genital cutting; it is in many countries.)

Genital cutting is a human rights issue. His genitals, his decision (when he is old enough - he'll almost certainly decide to keep them all).

The removal of 4skin is simply rediculous with today's standards of personal hygiene.

I was circumcised as an infant and, quite frankly, I cannot see what all the fuss is about. I was never religious, not did I come from a religious family - the decision was taken for health / hygiene reasons in the 70's. I do not feel emasculated, mutilated, violated or any of the usual s#¤te that one hears contra infant circumcision. In fact, I feel quite happy with my genitals thank you very much. I am glad that I was spared the necessity of having to scrape stinky smegma from my willy every day. Oh, and the fact that I am much less likely to get STDs is also a bonus if I decided to start a new hedonistic and carefree lifestyle.

Grow up woolly headed liberals - the world has bigger issues than male circumcision!

Greetings to all!

Although I´m not for defiling nature over political or religious issues,I must say that the poor child will have no chance later in life if the politics of His parents He,dosen´t comforme with!

Although is much more hygenic to have this foreskin removed and less sickness for the the *femenyn-nature top endure...!Do you get it!

Please teach that for health reasons forskins should be removed!Less ovarian and other sickness to woemen later...!

Farnoxo, I am glad you are happy with your circumcision. Many men don't share that opinion. Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to advocate circumcision.

"Grow up woolly headed liberals - the world has bigger issues than male circumcision!"

The world also has bigger issues than people running stop signs, red lights, people doing drugs, etc. Guess we should all just stop caring and let those things go on then? Our jails would certainly be less populated....

@ tgolan - Check your info. No major medical association in the world has ever recommended routine infant circumcision.

I agree that the evidence DOES NOT support any benefit to circumcisions.

It is done for purely religious and cosmetological reasons.

FORBID ALL circumcisions of children!

WHEN a person has reached the age of 18 THEN they can make their own decision - as painful as that might be!

I am a doctor in the US and regularly circumcise the babies I deliver. And, often, I circumcise boys that are older and are now choosing to get circumcised.

Very rarely do I see babies that do not get circed. Nor have I ever met a man who regretted being circumcised. It's just so common here... I cannot imagine it ever being a controversy! How in the world does it cause harm? A cultural thing, I guess.

FYI the article : http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/04/prweb3929634.htm

has no evidence to back it up... a very biased, incomplete article.

Comment: @ Yimp - you may not understand the controversy if you've never looked into the issue or taken a step back and questioned the ethical problems with what you've been doing. Some would think that performing unnecessary, painful, cosmetic surgery on babies would constitute assault and battery. This is considered harm, is it not? It shouldn't matter whether they grow up to regret it or not. The problem is that of a doctor abusing a patient - in this case, a minor who is unable to object or even understand what's being done to him (and if he could, you'd be practically inviting a malpractice suit). Search around on the internet, or merely read the above comments, and you'll find plenty of men who are dissatisfied with having been circumcised. I would advise against engaging any in conversation, as they would have too much contempt for someone like yourself to keep the discussion calm. I must ask, what is your motivation behind circumcising children? Do you get paid much for it?

tried to comment

@Yimp - I too am a doctor in the US, and during my medical school training I had to assist (actually just watch) a pediatrician perform a circumcision; it was done in the washing area (not the operating room) without anesthesia and the child (who was strapped down to a board) screamed in agony. I was shocked by the brutality of the procedure and the lack of concern for precision. An infant's penis is tiny and a small surgical scar irregularity can turn into a large bizarre scar as the penis grows during adolescence. Days after witnessing the procedure I learned that at the same hospital there was another boy that had been circumcised a few days before; the doctor had accidentally partially cut off the head of the infant's penis and reattached it. However, this did not heal properly and so the kid was left with the head of his penis cut off by this useless barbaric procedure. Think of the effect this will have on this kid as he matures and when he is an adult. Also think of the 117 infants who die every year in the US needlessly as a result of circumcision complications. It is genital mutilation and should not be performed on a human that is too young to decide if they want it done to their body.

jesus christ, just cut the darn skin off!!

penises are ugly enough, who wants to look at one with a big floppy hat on? cut it! (and as far as i remember they didn't "cut" anything on my son, they pushed the skin up around a piece of plastic and put a string around it to remove the blood supply and it fell off on its own--and he never even noticed)

@Yimp - "I am a doctor in the US and regularly circumcise the babies I deliver"

UNNECESSARY SURGERY? Now just to take the FINANCIAL incentive out of this barbaric act - you do it for FREE (NO COST) - correct? No need to answer because the answer is - NO, you have to charge for doing it!

Of course the patient gave his direct consent? Or was it his parent that felt societal pressures to have it done?

ABOUT GOD!!!

This is just further proof that god or allah (g-a) is incompetent because g-a created the human body and then figured out that g-a needed to send messengers to tell the people to fix g-a's mistakes.

Curious how g-a creates homosexuals and then demands they be exterminated. Homosexuality is hardwired in the brain and not a life style choice - so therefore homosexuals are created by g-a!

Born in Sweden and raised in the USA. All my friends were circumcised. I felt different in the locker room. So I gave in and got circumcised as a teenager. Worst mistake I ever made. Suddenly I realized that nobody except my myself cared. And boy did I regret having it done. After it finally healed, sex was no longer as enjoyable. Yes I was sexually active. And so are most teenagers now days. It became worse into adulthood. I raised 5 boys, and god forbid they were not circumcised. Now as adults they thank me for letting them make the final decission. Of course they never got circumcised. Think of that really sensative area under the foreskin. If it is exposed from birth it becomes less sensative. Compare it to always being barefoot. Your foot becomes less sensative as time goes on. Now if you wear shoes, well, think how sesative the bottom of your feet are when you do go barefood. Kudos to the doctors who refuse to circumcise as a routine procedure !! Especially with hygene at its current level in the Sweden & the USA. Maybe doing it in third world countries in a good idea. But certainly not here.

The benefits of circumcision include:

• Decrease in physical problems involving a tight foreskin [Ohjimi et al., 1995].

• Lower incidence of inflammation of the head of the penis [Escala & Rickwood, 1989; Fakjian et al., 1990; Edwards, 1996].

• Reduced urinary tract infections.

• Fewer problems with erections, especially at puberty.

• Decrease in certain sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as HIV, HPV, genital herpes, syphilis and other micro-organisms in men and their partner(s).

• Almost complete elimination of invasive penile cancer.

• Decrease in urological problems generally.

Reviews:

Besides the information contained in the present internet review, the reader can consult other reviews on the topic of circumcision and its benefits. These are as follows: [American, 1989; Schoen, 1990; Lafferty et al., 1991; Russell, 1993; Australian, 1995; Fetus, 1996; Morris, 1999; Adelman & Joffe, 2004; Alanis & Lucidi, 2004; Schoen, 2005a; Short, 2006; Thomson et al., 2006; Morris, 2007a; Schoen, 2007e; Schoen, 2007d; Schoen, 2007c; World, 2008a; World, 2008b; Austin, 2009; Ben et al., 2009; Morris, 2009; Morris & Castellsague, 2010; Morris & Cox, 2010; Tobian et al. 2010]. The message they convey is consistently a positive one.

The present review is, however, the most extensive by far, as one can appreciate by reading each specific section.

As can be appreciated, the benefits are different as the human male progresses through life. Each of these benefits will be now be reviewed in detail.

Welcome to the brave new world. Everyone has an opinion about how everyone else should lead their lives. What happened to MYOB? Yes, of course all you socialists know what is best for everyone else's children, while you assert the 'right' to fornicate and murder your own unborn children. But let's ignore MURDER...yes, a little bit of skin is a bigger deal!

Let's be multi-cultural...as long as it's only MY culture! Let's be inclusive...as long as I get to decide who and what to include!

Let's just be clear. This isn't about mutilation, pros/cons, 'caring' or anything like that. This is purely and simply anti-semitism with a root hatred of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob whose description of right and wrong condemns all of us. Rage while you can. What He has said will be performed in spite of you...you prove Him right with every word out of your mouth!

And before you start flaming me: I am circumcised, but none of my three boys are. Not because I have anything against circumcision, but simply because it actually IS MY RIGHT to choose, NOT YOURS. You better start cleaning your own house because what goes around, comes around. You want to meddle in everyone else's business? Get ready to have your gullets stuffed to suffocation with having your's meddled with.

TheEnd, I find it far stranger when people think a fetus should have the right to autonomy while inside the womb, and lose that right when born.

Everyone here can agree that once a baby is born that baby has all the rights of a citizen, and that includes the right to autonomy.

There is no excuse for medical abuse, and the word "reason(s)" should never be used in the same sentence as the word "religion". Religious freedom is fine as long as it doesn't violate the rights of children, male or female, which genital mutilation (a.k.a. "circumcision") most certainly does.

There is no medical necessity for this. Every so called problem can be fixed or prevented by understanding the male anatomy instead of lazily administering an irreversible and dangerous procedure. The only people in favour of genital mutilation are usually the ones with the scars who are trying to justify them by repeating the cycle of sexual abuse, and reaping a profit.

Fortunately, several of the scarified are speaking out for the rights of male and female children. Has any man with a whole penis ever promoted "circumcision"? Only if he wants to be labeled a hypocrite and cash in.

These doctors are to be commended on refusing to perform this ridiculous and outdated quack procedure that will one day go the way of bloodletting. The only reason this continues, is because it happens to males, and it generates a profit. Now, let's go a step further and criminalise it.

Every day I curse the quack who mutilated me for the horrible disease of "live birth", which is what was written in the "reason to operate" column. If I were 18, I'd sue the hell out of him. It wasn't my mother, it was the quack who made the ultimate decision, the one holding the knife. He edited MY body. If he'd have been caught fondling my penis, he'd have gone to jail. This makes no sense. Am I living in the Goddamned twilight zone? Is the human mind really so stupid that it rationalises what would be considered criminal behaviour if "circumcision" were introduced as something new today?

Eighty five percent of males internationally are intact and living proof that "circumcision" is a lie. Stop placing involuntary males into an irreversible category of the sexually subjugated. We are people with rights, not objects.

Thanks to the Swedish doctors for refusing to mutilate boys. This is a very important stand you are making. I was mutilated in an American hospital at the age of four, and feel a deep resentment for what was done to me. I consider that doctor to be a child abuser, and have no respect for him, or any doctor who would perform this procedure on a child. (Needless to say, this makes it hard for me to seek medical advice or treatment from anyone in the american medical industry) I have never been allowed to experience my natural body, and sexuality, thanks to this sexual perversion that was imported to my culture from the middle east. (and you think the Catholic church has a child abuse problem? that pales in comparison to this problem in the other two Abrahamic religions) Circumcision is all about control, and sexual oppression, and removes and or damages most of the erogenous tissue of the penis, which is an exquisite organ of sensation. The issue of abortion is an entirely separate issue as it involves the bodies of the mother, and the fetus, which makes it much more complex. Circumcision involves only one person's body. HIS BODY-HIS CHOICE.

@TheEnd: "I am circumcised, but none of my three boys are. Not because I have anything against circumcision, but simply because it actually IS MY RIGHT to choose, NOT YOURS."

Good on you for leaving them THEIR right to choose, which is more important than yours, because they are THEIR bodies. They are only "your" children for the first 18 years or so of their lives. You hold their bodies in trust for that time and have an obligation to give them back then with, as far as possible, all their original parts.

Pregnancy is a process, not a state: most people have no objection to ending it at the very beginning (IUDs), and every objection at the end. Circumcision occurs after that when the child is an independent human being, so it's a different kind of issue.

@Mordecaim: You seem to have culled your references from someone like Brian Morris, who never saw a reason for circumcising he didn't like. There are as many references against circumcision. "Fewer..." "Decreased ..." "Lower ..." "Almost complete elimination..." Those may be true, but tell less than half the story: Penile cancer is very rare, rarer than breast cancer in men, and men don't use their breasts; we could prevent more cancer by cutting them off in infancy. Urinary tract infections run at about 1% in boys (4% in girls) so 99.1% of circumcisions to prevent them would be wasted, 99% on boys who were never going to get UTI, 0.1% on boys who get them after being circumcised - and those are from the circumcision advocates' own figures! Meanwhile circumcision has risks and harms that outweigh its claimed benefits.

Circumcision is a "cure' looking for a disease.