Aren't we treading on controversial territory here - I am sure there would be strong opinions on this subject. Coming to your question, while I wouldn't use the term "child abuse," I pretty much agree with the sentiment. I read somewhere that a majority of circumcisions done in America are not done for religious reasons. I wouldn't touch the religious angle for obvious reasons - I don't want to get into a religious debate. However, I don't understand why people would want to get their children circumcised if they are not religiously obliged to do so.

The majority argument put forward to justify circumcision is that of "cleanliness," that it is healthy. The argument is that smegma (the foul smelling pasty accumulation) is a bad thing and a sign of lack of cleanliness. However, smegma build-up is very easy to manage and not cause enough to warrant circumcision. Also, normal quantities of smegma kills bacteria and provides moisture to the glans.

My biggest issue with circumcision is that personal choice/rights go out of the window. Consent of the individual concerned obviously is not sought. That decision is made for him by his parents. Isn't that wrong?? Now, that can be viewed as a kind of abuse!! Shouldn't the individual's choice matter in this case? Its a procedure that can't be reversed. Its not the same as vaccinating your child - it definitely is not akin to ear piercing or any of the things people bring up in a feeble attempt to defend wanton circumcisions.

There are certainly complications that could result from circumcision, which shouldn't be overlooked by parents. Some of them include:

1. Unusually bad scarring.
2. Skin tags - some of these complications may present in later life.
3. Also, lack of foreskin diminishes sensitivity of the glans (the tip of the penis).
4. Accidental snipping of the glans.

However, since there are virtually no complications immediately following surgery, except for excessive bleeding in some cases, circumcision is viewed as a 100% complication-free procedure.

Its certainly interesting to view male circumcision when one compares it to the practice of female circumcision - a practice that is prevalent in some African countries. Most view female circumcision as being mutilation of the genitals. Isn't male circumcision similar? When you are cutting off the foreskin, you are in fact removing thousands of nerves and it invariably is going to affect sensitivity of the penis. One can certainly say that the effect is minimal, etc, but the question is shouldn't consent of the individual concerned be asked? People value the right of an individual so much - shouldn't rights matter in this case?

Circumcision may be good or bad - I ain't nobody to judge that. However, I do feel that individuals should be able to make that decision and their consent sought, especially if circumcision is being done for non-religious reasons.