I was sent this news story today, and was asked to comment on it.
My response was:
I don't support the idea that a parent has the right to mutilate their children's bodies without a solid reason for doing so.
From what I have heard and read (podcasts, books etc) the health claims made about circumcision are all either false, or negligable when compared to the possible defecits.
If a person chooses to get a circumcision for cosmetic or cultural reasons, I believe that they should be able to choose when they are capable of doing so, with all the relevant information at their disposal.
At the heart of it, circumcision is a cultural/religious practice which may have come from many ancient sources, including health, identifying races, and spiritual beliefs. The modern medical claims seem to be an attempt to justify the practice post hoc, and to me, that's not good enough.
I believe that laws protecting male children from circumcision are a good move, and may help to break down an outdated, irrational practice.
You can read a much better response to the circumcision debate by Harriet Hall, the Skepdoc here: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=269
For more information on the Sydney Atheists Visit our website here.