system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The controversy over Circumcision is seriously overblown and those that choose it for their children shouldn't be criticized.

Many people seem to equate male circumcision to genital mutilation that will violate the child for life. This view has gained so much popularity that it influenced policy making and medical guidelines. 

However, I personally think that this issue is seriously blown out of proportion. Male circumcision is literally just removing a small piece of skin that covers the glans (tip) penis. This foreskin serves no function, neither biological nor aesthetic. Evidence shows that it does not play a role in sexual pleasure. It's removal does not cause any damage (short-term or long-term) to urinary or sexual function. 

So, with that said, I really don't see the point of this debate and the people that cry "child abuse" because someone decided to circumcise their child. 

Also, circumcision is an important cultural practice in many parts of the World. You can't claim to be respectful of other cultures and also want to outright ban circumcision or at least stigmatize the practice. If a Muslim or Jew decide to circumcise their child, then there should not be an attack against them and trying to ostracize them for their beliefs or culture. Again, they are not engaging in a harmful activity, so this hostility against the procedure is not warranted imo. It's not like FGM, where the procedure can affect genital and even reproductive function and dooms the girl to a life of constant UTIs and pain.

Now, one of the biggest talking points in this discussion is bodily autonomy. The baby should be left alone to decide for itself when it is 18+. However, if the cultural practice is to circumcise the baby at birth or early in life, then that should be respected. By demanding that the decision be left to the baby, you might be trying to kill that cultural practice and trying to push an anti-circumcision agenda on the population. The 18 year old teen might get succumb to the vilification of this procedure and so refuse it and if this attitude grows, then the procedure will be abandoned all together, especially as the older generation starts to die out. So, this argument of bodily autonomy appears to me as a disguise to push a particular agenda against circumcision and to shift public opinion against it, even though it does not deserve that. My point is that bodily autonomy is meant to give time for children to be swayed from this procedure and made to understand that it's an absolutely horrible thing, which is unjustified. 

Now, the medical guidelines are neither in favour of universal circumcision nor the banning of this procedure. Research has shown the circumcised males are statistically less likely to contract and carry STD's, but it's not a very significant benefit. Other research has shown that circumcised and non circumcised males experienced the same level of pleasure and it is widely agreed that the foreskin has no role in sexual pleasure or performance. Some countries have chosen to ban the procedure completely, but I think that it's not done out of medical or practical concern, but rather to pander to a growing population with sentiment against the procedure, ie political pressure.

In conclusion, people that routinely circumcise their children should not be stigmatized and the very act of male circumcision should not be vilified. It's not a harmful procedure and may have some benefits (probably not very significant), so it should be left to the discretion of the parents. If you don't condone circumcision, all the power to you and you can go ahead and not circumcise your child, but you don't have to force your ideology on others and create a cultural shift against the practice.
gpt
It's a lot easier to support the mutilation of babies when you have grown up in a culture where that is the tradition ... but how do you feel about some of the other cultural traditions - for example, there's a tribe in Africa where they take the children at the age of about 10, and put a block of wood against the lower middle two front teeth, and smash the teeth out ... the argument to support that tradition is identical to your argument to support male genital mutilation.

The foreskin serves a function, as any intact male can explain to you.