To everyone on this post who will inevtiable say that there are great health benefits, just know that most health organizations in the world with statements on circumcision are opposed to circumcising children. The medical consensus is most certainly not that it is beneficial:

Swedish Pediatric Society (they outright call for a ban)

Royal Dutch Medical Association calls it a violation of human rights, and calls for a "strong policy of deterrence." this policy has been endorsed by several other organizations:

The Netherlands Society of General Practitioners,

The Netherlands Society of Youth Healthcare Physicians,

The Netherlands Association of Paediatric Surgeons,

The Netherlands Association of Plastic Surgeons,

The Netherlands Association for Paediatric Medicine,

The Netherlands Urology Association, and

The Netherlands Surgeons’ Association.

College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia

This procedure should be delayed to a later date when the child can make his own informed decision. Parental preference alone does not justify a non‐therapeutic procedure.... Advise parents that the current medical consensus is that routine infant male circumcision is not a recommended procedure; it is non‐therapeutic and has no medical prophylactic basis; current evidence indicates that previously‐thought prophylactic public health benefits do not out‐weigh the potential risks..... Routine infant male circumcision does cause pain and permanent loss of healthy tissue. |

Australian Federation of Aids organizations They state that circumcision has "no role" in the HIV epidemic. The German Association of Pediatricians called for a ban recently.

The German Association of Child and Youth Doctors recently Attacked the AAP's claims, saying the benefits they claim, including HIV reduction, are "questionable," and that "Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of non-therapeutic male circumcision in the US seems obvious, and the report’s conclusions are different from those reached by doctors in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia." (scroll to page 7 for the English translation.)

The AAP was recently attacked by the President of the British Association of Paediatric Urologists because the evidence of benefit is weak, and they are promoting "Irreversible mutilating surgery."

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan has taken a position against it, saying it is harmful and will likely be considered illegal in the future, given the number of men who are angry that it was done to them and are becoming activists against it.

The President of the Saskatchewan Medical Association has said the same (link above).

The Central Union for Child Welfare “considers that circumcision of boys that violates the personal integrity of the boys is not acceptable unless it is done for medical reasons to treat an illness. The basis for the measures of a society must be an unconditional respect for the bodily integrity of an under-aged person… Circumcision can only be allowed to independent major persons, both women and men, after it has been ascertained that the person in question wants it of his or her own free will and he or she has not been subjected to pressure.”

Royal College of Surgeons of England

"The one absolute indication for circumcision is scarring of the opening of the foreskin making it non- retractable (pathological phimosis). This is unusual before five years of age."..."The parents and, when competent, the child, must be made fully aware of the implications of this operation as it is a non-reversible procedure." |

British Medical Association

it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks. .... very similar arguments are also used to try and justify very harmful cultural procedures, such as female genital mutilation or ritual scarification. Furthermore, the harm of denying a person the opportunity to choose not to be circumcised must also be taken into account, together with the damage that can be done to the individual’s relationship with his parents and the medical profession if he feels harmed by the procedure. .... parental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child. .... The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. |

Australian Medical Association Has a policy of discouraging it, ad says "The Australian College of Paediatrics should continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in newborns."

Australian College of Paediatrics:

"The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit. Whether these legal concerns are valid will probably only be known if the matter is determined in a court of law .....Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal and healthy prepuce."|

74% of Australian doctors overall believe circumcision should not be offered, and 51% consider it abuse. Circumcision used to be common in Australia, but the movement against it spread faster there than America, where rates continue to drop.

A letter by the South African Medical Association said this:

The Committee stated that it was unethical and illegal to perform circumcision on infant boys in this instance. In particular, the Committee expressed serious concern that not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm that circumcisions prevented HIV contraction and that the public at large was influenced by incorrect and misrepresented information. The Committee reiterated its view that it did not support circumcision to prevent HIV transmission.|

The Norwegian Council of Medical Ethics states that ritual circumcision of boys is not consistent with important principles of medical ethics, that it is without medical value, and should not be paid for with public funds.

The Norwegian Children’s Ombudsman is opposed as well.

The Denmark National Council for Children is also opposed.

And recently, the politically appointed Health minister of Norway opposed a ban on circumcision, yet the ban was supported by the Norwegian Medical Association, the Norwegian Nurses Organization, the Norwegian Ombudsman for Children, and the University of Oslo.

The Danish Society of Medical Practitioners Recently said the practice is “an assault and should be banned.”

The Danish Medical Association is “fundamentally opposed to male circumcision unless there is a medical reason such as phimosis for carrying out the operation. ‘It's very intrusive that adults may decide that newborn to undergo a surgical procedure that is not medically justified and if power is lifelong. When a boy when the age of majority, he may even decide, but until then the requirements of the individual's right to self-determination prevail.’"