Circumcision: an unnecessary, brutal practice for those who can't consent

Article here. Excerpt:

'“Here’s this little bundle ... First let’s find a sharp stone or knife and start hacking at the genitalia,” begins journalist Christopher Hitchens, setting up a scenario that about 58 percent of male infants born in the United States went through in 2010. “Because, as it turns out,” Hitchens continues, “the design isn’t that great, and in a crucial feature, too.”

He concludes, “No morally decent person would do this if it wasn’t for superstition.”

Infant male circumcision is a practice not often questioned by new parents. It’s either divinely warranted or it’s just something that people do. But witnessing a ceremony like this should cause outrage in any morally normal person.

Reputable studies by the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control have shown that there is evidence of circumcision preventing the contraction of sexually transmitted diseases such as HPV and HIV. This is reasonable, considering there is a 44 percent lower rate of HIV infection among circumcised men.

“But doesn’t that contradict your point?” you might ask.

I would answer: no. My point isn’t that male circumcision is always morally wrong, but that it’s a sinister practice to inflict on non-consenting infants.

These studies are likely as significant as they sound, but we can rest assured that a child is not at risk for STDs in his infancy or in childhood. A procedure that is unnecessary, painful, traumatic and even life-threatening should never be inflicted on a child until he is able to consent to the operation himself.'