Comment 5 by ccw95005 :

Probably not, thinking that I would be able to protect myself. Would I have circumcision done on my sons? Probably not, but I would agonize, knowing that I would be putting them at a small increased risk of a deadly disease.

Your sons will not be sexually active during infancy. Once they reach a certain age they can decide for themselves. Or you could simply sponsor a condom.

The evidence is actually pretty clear. There have been a number of studies done in Africa and they have consistently showed a remarkably lower rate of HIV and other STDs in boys who were circumcised.

There have been a number of studies to show that HIV infection rate is extremely low for individuals using condoms. The problem here is not missing circumcisions, it is the activity of religious organisations in and out of Africa, actively preventing people from having access to free or affordable protection.

Now the tendency on this forum and among humanity in general is to ignore evidence that doesn't fit with our own prejudices. But if we are honest with ourselves and consider ourselves engaged in a search for truth, we should admit that we don't like the idea of circumcision, but that it probably does reduce the incidence of certain diseases, some of them serious or fatal.

You are of course right that we should always pursue ideas to see if they offer improvement, independently of ones own prejudice. But you miss the point. Circumcision is not what best prevents those diseases. See above.

I believe that laws outlawing circumcision are well-meaning, but that decision is none of the lawmakers' business.

It absolutely is. Personal religious freedom does not extent to those around you, even if family. Every person must be able to chose without fear of corporal punishment. Mutilating children for dogma is an abhorrent practice and serves no reasonable purpose.