Why do defenders of circumcision so often characterize opposing arguments with the terms "rant" and "polemic"? There is no reason to paint anti-circumcision advocates as irrational fundamentalists. In fact, the core arguments against routine circumcision are quite rational: it is medically unnecessary, and it is a permanent body alteration performed on an unconsenting infant.

Male circumcision can also be dangerous. I know a couple of men who were severely damaged by the procedure. An acquaintance mentioned that she had done a pediatric urology rotation, and spent the entire time trying to repair little penises that had been damaged by "botched" circumcisions. That's not exactly a statistical analysis, but it indicates that the procedure can be dangerous... like every other surgery. To my mind, it is hard to justify subjecting infants to that risk.