The fact that circumcision of unconsenting infants is legal is insane to me.
Her disturbing response: "But if you let him choose he will say no."
There's plenty of examples where we do what's "best" for kids without their consent. Vaccines for example. So I don't really buy this "their body" argument, although I respect the merits.
> Three randomized clinical trials showed that adult male circumcision significantly reduced the risk for HIV acquisition among heterosexual males by 51%–60% (95% confidence interval 16%–76%) over time. These trials also found that medically performed adult circumcision significantly reduced the risk of men acquiring two common sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including genital ulcer disease (GUD) prevalence by 47% and incidence by 48% and high-risk (i.e. oncogenic) types of human papilloma virus (HR-HPV) prevalence by 23%–47%.
It also seems to reduce the risk of UTIs
> Male circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of urinary tract infections inmales aged 0–1 years by 90%, in males aged 1–16 years by 85%, and in males >16 years by 71%.
This data is from a report from the CDC https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/58456
Now, whether these would worth the tradeoff with reduced sensitivity, surgical risks (e.g. reduced sexual function due to tight scar formation), the psychological trauma for the infant, etc. is another question.
Obviously there's some trade off here, and I don't think it's worth it to circumcise anyone without their consent or medical necessity.
That's not a valid reason to have it done.
It's easy to keep yourself clean and I've never once heard of anyone getting sores because they failed to wash for an extended period of time.
For instance, my mother is aghast at the prospect of clipping a dog's ears or docking it's tail. And yet, when it came to the birth of her sons the same sense of ethics never registered about circumcision.
Circumcision, and perhaps female breast cancer, aside: the accumulated evidence is pretty strongly in the opposite direction. There have been quite a few studies on the topic over the last 30 years, with little improvement.
And I should add that even if it were shown to be 'cleaner' (as far as the reduction of the chance to contract STD's), I would not find that compelling enough to cut off the most nerve dense part of the penis before the person is able to consent.