I guess I am one of those guys rabidly against non-medically necessary circumcision on baby boys. I am thrilled that the rate of circumcision has gone down in this country. I find it barbaric to cut off a section of a baby's skin without any medical necessity. Would it be okay if another religion developed that insisted that ear lobes of babies should be cut off shortly after birth? How about a few toe nails?

I believe that if it were not common and/or practiced in certain western religions, most people would find the tradition abusive. I also feel that any parents that intend to have their baby circumcised when not medically necessary should be required to have part of their skin removed, using just as much anesthesia as will be used on their son. Any adult that chooses to do it for himself is perfectly okay ... it is his choice to have it done. I know a lot of people focus on the sexual part of it. To me that may be relevant, but the simple fact that so many of us find the procedure itself barbaric and abusive is more than enough of a reason to be strongly against it.

If it can be proven that there is a significant medical benefit to doing the procedure, then that is entirely different. But, at least for men in this country, no one has shown that to be the case.