Pesonally I am totally against circumcision if not medically indicated. In my time as a medical service technician I witnessed 2 procedures and it is not pretty. A week old baby cannot be given anaesthetics and they suffer through the procedure. It is not just snip snip and slip it off, the foreskin is adhered to the glans (head) and if the foreskin is left intact, remains so for some years.

So in addition to the skin being cut the foreskin is forcibly removed from its adhesion. You have to witness this being done and hear the distress of the infant to understand how barbaric this is.

What about choice? A baby has no say if he wants to keep his own foreskin, Why force this decision on him. Allow him to keep it and decide for himself later in life when he is capable of making that decision. Just have a look at this site http://www.circumstitions.com/ with the link to actual pictures of penises mutilated by bad circumcisions and see whether they are more healthy than the intact ones.

I think the most noticeable difference even in well performed procedures is what happens to the glans that is not covered by the foreskin that nature provided. The glans of an intact man is smooth and sleek, the cirmumcised penis has a look of unmoisturised skin, flakey looking and dry. Well it is unmoisturised isn't it.

The procedure is not necessary unless there is a medical condition that requires it. It is far riskier to do a procedure that is not warranted than to not do it. There are more penile injuries caused through circumcision than accidents or disease.

To parents thinking of doing this to their boy in his infancy, do not do it, if it wasn't meant to be there we would not be born with it.

Grumble steps down from the soap box LOL, I am very passionate about this topic.