Justification for neonatal male circumcision

In regards to your first point, I'll first take a look at your sources. The first two I call into question ( as well as the circinfo.org website, as it appears to be biased), as it doesn't appear to provide an adequate number of circumcised men to form a proper conclusion. Instead, it rushes to one based on anecdotes from 310 circumcised men without suggesting further research, and nor does it suggest that the authors did any sort of analysis on the brain's reception to pleasure before and after circumcision in comparison to the uncircumcised men. As for the third source, while it doesn't appear to be as flawed as the first 2, it does bring me to my counters about how this information may all be false. The field of circumcision is hotly debated, and some do consider the need for more research. But, the general consensus among studies - and metastudies - seems to be that circumcision does not reduce sexual pleasure nor does it negatively effect sexual function. [1, 2, 3, 4]Your second argument is fallacious, as it relies on the genetic fallacy in order to provide a counterargument. [5] As for your third point, I would simply argue that, if a procedure is medically beneficial, then I would say they do have a right to infringe upon the child's rights. Otherwise, they would be subjecting their child to medical risks, which I'm sure many would agree is a morally worse decision. Furthermore, parents do have rights over their children and what they can and cannot do, including medical procedures. Thus, I would say it is not a human rights issue.While I do find your fourth point fair, I also find it generally irrelevant if there are medical benefits to circumcision. Furthermore, as it is not a requirement (the AAP agrees it shouldn't be [6]), I would say this conclusion isn't particularly valid, as while they do make some profit off of it, it not being required indicates evidence against it being a money-making scheme, as if it were one it would likely be mandatory. Also, furthermore, I find the conclusions that circumcised men use more Viagra to be baseless, as neither source you've provided showcases substantial evidence for that claim.The AAP can easily change their minds if the evidence leads them that way, for one. For another, according to your sources, they seem to advise against routine pain, which contradicts circumcision, which is a one time thing. However, Source #14 of yours does go into more specifics about infant pain as a whole, and how it should try to be minimized, so I will grant you that. However, we can easily use pain treatment such as anesthesia, or other local anesthetic methods that source #19 of yours seems to suggest. But, you seem to argue against anesthetics' effectiveness on children. Thus, I'll first take a look at your sources supporting this. Your 15th source, a CNN article from 1997, provides no link to the studies at hand nor direct quotes, and furthermore it actually argues in favor of anesthetics, saying they should be provided before the circumcision. Source #16 of yours also recommends (albeit local) anesthesia, as well as circumcision ~90 minutes after being born, among various other methods. Source #17 of yours references a study [7] that actually does report in favor of treatment methods and anesthesia that the aforementioned source of yours is against. The effects the writer of Source #17 of yours noted were only observed in groups that were either untreated or only had a placebo. The study also advocated for other treatment methods being used as well, and also called for further studies of active pain relief. The most you could say is that it says "None of the studied interventions completely eliminated the pain response to circumcision," however given that the various methods discussed within your sources seem to reduce the pain, it can be inferred (based on Source #14 of yours) that the infant pain rates, even with anesthesia, are far less severe than without it, and are not permanently damaging. Thus, contrary to your conclusion, the AAP is in fact heeding their own advice, and anesthesia, among other pain treatment forms, should be used.Now, as for your final claim that various conditions can occur, you are correct, however you fail to state that these conditions are rare, as Source #18 of yours seems to state. Furthermore, Source #19 of yours seems to discuss another rare case (which can be treated, by the way) and Source #20 states "In summary, multiple complications can occur after circumcision, ranging from the insignificant to the tragic. Virtually all of these complications are preventable with only a modicum of care. Unfortunately, most such complications occur at the hands of inexperienced operators who are neither urologists nor surgeons." So, since these complications are mostly due to inexperienced operators, and almost all can be treated, I would say addressing this is a moot point. As for the deaths, while those sources are correct in that infants can die from circumcision (not 100% sure about the numbers your source provides, though) they are incredibly rare, as the sources imply, and, in fact, they are so rare that they are reported as case reports. [8, 9] This isn't even mentioning how they're potentially preventable as well, as they seem mostly due to poor medical care. [9] Now, let's compare this to deaths potentially prevented by circumcision. For cervical cancer, 4,217 women have died from it in 2013. [10] For penile cancer, ~130 men have died from it in the UK in 2014. [11] Untreated urinary tract infections can lead to sepsis. Sepsis caused by urinary tract issues is referred to as urosepsis. Urosepsis accounts for 9 - 31% of all sepsis cases and has a death rate of 20 - 40%. [12] Even accounting for the lower end of both of these scales, as well as the lower end of the annual death rate [13], that still accounts for 3,024 deaths annually from urosepsis. This isn't even accounting for the potential STD-related deaths it could prevent, nor is it accounting for hospitalization or infection of the diseases it prevents. Thus, since circumcision can potentially prevent thousands of more deaths than are caused by it (which are largely due to improper medical treatment), it is definitely something that is far more beneficial to get than it is not to get.Thus, contrary to your conclusion, circumcision is actually largely beneficial with the ability to potentially prevent thousands of deaths (even if we calculate at the lower end for provided statistics), with only rare complications, of which most are largely preventable (including the deaths). Thus, if anything, the procedures for circumcision should be improved upon rather than thrown out of the window, given the health benefits they provide.1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...2. http://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com...(16)30268-3/abstract3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...4. http://www.jsm.jsexmed.org...(15)30172-7/abstract5. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...6. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...7. https://www.nichd.nih.gov...8. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...9. https://www.hindawi.com...10. https://www.cdc.gov...11. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org...12. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...13. https://www.cdc.gov...