It sounds like you’re just repeating their propaganda. Negative, which is why they reversed their position in a few weeks, after withering criticism. That just shows you how political they are. In my judgment, the decision was made because they are huge cultural relativists and leftists, who will ritually sacrifice the integrity of the sacrosanct bodies of little children on the altar of cultural relativism and political correctness.

“Why, it’s their culture, who are we to judge? Let’s compromise!”

Steve: BTW, what is your stance on vaccinating infants? It can be quite painful and traumatic for them.

Addressed elsewhere already. But let me tell you, I have never seen a more ridiculous comparison to genital cutting. Well, one. One person actually compared it to cutting hair.

Steve: So, by all means let’s outlaw circumcision…abortion, no problem – circumcision, the horror!!!!

Third-trimester abortions should be treated just like murder – and I dare say what you probably do not, that if there be no issue of life, physical health or fatal fetal deformity, both the mother and the doctor should be treated as murderers. Do not expect me to die on a hill for fertilized eggs or frozen embryos, but I defend the defenseless.

I also believe that people should control their own body. Pro-lifers pay lip service to this, and say that they are merely opposed to abortion because they believe that a fetus is a human being who should have rights, but in this case, you (individual) clearly stand opposed to it.

Even in Africa (from a USAID report):
“There appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence—in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher.”

It is unclear if circumcised men are more likely to infect women. The only ever randomized controlled trial into male-to-female transmission showed a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised.

Women have “skin folds” too, but we don’t cut parts off baby girls. Think how much money we could save by removing their breast buds too (breast cancer affects about 12% of women, and kills about 3%).

BTW, what is your stance on vaccinating infants? It can be quite painful and traumatic for them.

So, by all means let’s outlaw circumcision…abortion, no problem – circumcision, the horror!!!!

In a controversial change to a longstanding policy concerning the practice of female circumcision in some African and Asian cultures, the American Academy of Pediatrics is suggesting that American doctors be given permission to perform a ceremonial pinprick or “nick” on girls from these cultures if it would keep their families from sending them overseas for the full circumcision. [yeah, giving legitimacy to the practice does this sort of thing]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/health/policy/07cuts.html

Oh, what a worthy, learned group! They can’t be wrong!

It is also ironic that a lot of the promoters of this practice steadfastly oppose the Gardasil vaccine, which prevents HPV. Even though (1) HPV is near perfectly preventable with Gardasil (2) it is not invasive (3) HPV cannot be avoided with protection (4) the vast majority of women get HPV at some point in their life. On the other hand, a very tiny portion of the population gets HIV, this invasive procedure does not even prevent it (only reduces the chance somewhat), and it easily can be prevented with protection. Now that’s interesting.

Avik Roy makes the case here that you are right to be worried:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/the-biggest-beneficiary-of-the-contraception-mandate-drug-companies/254048/

While we are at it, why not cut off women’s breasts to avoid the chance of them getting breast cancer.