No Disease, No Consent, No Injury = NO SURGERY!

Circumcision is cruel.

Condoms are great prevention, but (news flash!) no one uses them. If they did we wouldn't have STDs in epidemic proportions. This whole thing is nuts. As circumcision has not been proven to harm a man, why not just let the parents decide? And doing it at birth is 100 times better than later. This is all just crazy.

Do unto others as you would have done to you. Would you want someone to strap you down and cut any part of you away with out your consent nor pain meds? I highly doubt it. Leave the choice to the owner of the body. Very simple!!!!

I agree with Monika. Reduces transmission of STIs? So does a condom. Reduces risk of penile cancer? It is rare to begin with, and the last time I checked, no one advocates amputating an infant's healthy body parts to prevent cancer. Cosmetic reasons? Again, no one supports other cosmetic surgeries on infants. Let the man decide when he is old enough to choose for himself. If it is too painful for a grown man to endure, why on earth would you subject a baby to it--because the baby is smaller and unable to explain how much it hurts?

@KQEDForum what "health benefits" would merit female genital mutilation? Its a human rights issue, not a Hygiene or prophylactic one. #i2

Not what European doctors and medical groups have been saying. They criciticise this report as being too American. I suspect they are right and that it is the medical profession who are afraid of losing a steady source of income on newborns plus the possibility of too many doctors with jewish roots looking for making their traditions appear medically founded.

In other news, removing all teeth can reduce incidents of tooth decay. Amputating all women's breasts can prevent breast cancer. Genital mutilation is a barbaric practice that has more basis in superstition than in medicine. As a European I am not circumcised and I have yet to hear one complaint about how my penis looks, not that I would listen to them anyway since it's my body and my decision. Women have no say in this. None. Zip. Nada. Why is anyone surprised that the only developed country where this is widespread is also the only developed country where health care is considered a business?

Nope, not buying the Academy's logic ... then why in so many other countries is it only done for religious reasons, and not the so-called "health benefits" ?

wondering if there is a connection to the american puritan roots, mothers shying away from telling/showing their little boys how to pull back foreskin to wash themselves to keep clean

In Europe we do not circumcize our children and they are perfectly healthy ! And we have less HIV or problems like this than in USA.

There may be STD advantages to circumcision, but avoidance of disease does not trump the right of boys to remain intact until age 18, when they should be able to make their own decision. Something else seemingly never mentioned is the fact that should a child turn out to be transgendered, an intact foreskin provides for a better outcome when constructing a neovagina. For this reason alone, circumcision should be banned for children.