Are there persuasive non-religious reasons for male circumcision?

 Well, if the batter looks ready, let's bake the cake. 

Okay, I think we've got the right wording here.

I like that wording, Tuffster!

Are we on board for adopting:

Are there persuasive non-religious reasons for male circumcision?

I vote to approve this wording as it lends to a full range of reasons to be posted.

About.com

Male circumcision has often been carried out for reasons of hygiene. It is known that men who have had a circumcision seem to contract fewer urinary tract infections.
Circumcision does offer some defense against sexually transmitted diseases and HIV.

There is also evidence that circumcised men have a lower rate of penile cancer, a very rare form of cancer. Research is unclear about whether circumcision reduces the risk of cervical cancer in female sexual partners.

 This is definitely a mens' rights issue and I hope it gets approved; society and religions need to stop making us their collective "bitch" by chopping off a part of our penises.  It's like the oldest way of tattooing a number on you.  Let us decide hoodie or no hoodie-our choice. It's that simple.

I think that's fair. As you mentioned below there are certainly lots of people who have been circumcized for non-religious reasons.

@Nick Oliva In 2004, estimated that 57% of all newborns delivered in hospitals were circumcized. This number was much lower than the past several decades. And were talking about a country that is predominantly Christian, a religion that clearly does not require the practice.

 Are there persuasive non-religious reasons for male circumcision?

I believe this is the same wording posed for the question about religion and abortion.  I think it effectively captures the tension in the crossroads of  mens' sexual rights,infant gender mutilation, religion, and medical validity of circumcision.

@Nick Oliva from WHO:

Recommendations :
1.1 Male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention.
1.2 Promoting male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men.

 Actually, some people do choose to have it done to their children for medical reasons and absolutely not due to their own religious beliefs / customs.

I agree with JZ, it's not "some people" but "a lot."  My parents stole my hoodie when I was baby, for no religious reason--they were told it was more hygenic and standard procedure.  For real, that's how they rolled in the seventies and eighties.

Actually, some people do choose to have it done to their children for medical reasons and absolutely not due to their own religious beliefs / customs.

However, I do agree that whatever route we go with this, it should specify "male circumcision" in some way.

are you suggesting that people say circumcision can help prevent spreadh of hiv? Because I think that's ridiculous.

Circumcision is done for religious reasons or custom. It's not a medical thing at all. I think you should specify "male circumcision" or "circumcision of infant males"... because there are cases where there's infection (or something similar) where uncircumcised adults are made to undergo circumcision for medical/health reasons... the question is whether all males should have to do it to avoid the chance of having to do it as an adult... which doesn't seem very persuasive.

It seems to me that it's mostly done for religious or traditional reasons - the question could also be whether because of tradition it's presumed to be medically necessary...

I think we should go the cultural route as JGuard suggested below. The HIV debate seems like everyone agrees it can help to prevent.

You asked, so here it is:

Circumcision, It's Not Necessary
BENJAMIN SPOCK, M.D.
Redbook, April 1989

From an article on the Mothers Against Circumcision website: "There is a less than 1% chance that circumcision will ever be medically necessary."

And finally from the ABOUT.COM Pregnancy Guides in answer to this particular question:

Currently the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) does not recommend non-medical circumcision except for religious circumcisions.

 

There may be medical reasons why circumcision were necessary such as using the foreskin as a skin graft to another location on your baby's body. This is very rare and the circumcision would not be done at birth.

 

Many insurances no longer cover the costs of circumcision. Their reasoning is that, unless there are medical reasons, it is a cosmetic surgery.

i agree with JGuard. The issue of male circumcision as a preventive procedure against the spread of HIV would kind of be ignored with the current wording.

I don't see PF's saying something as absolute as "circumcision is necessary" -- unless you can find me sample evidence to the contrary.

I think it's a better debate if we stick with "necessary."

I'm wondering if a better question might be: Does Circumsion have health benefits?

There are two seperate paths to focus on with this issue: 1) Circumsion can reduce transmission of HIV--is it beneficial? 2) Circumsion as a cultural practice- is it wrong? The original question does not adequately address either of the two focuses exactly...

I would either rephrase: 

Many who say it's wrong will discount the benefits allowing them to be placed in the negative and advocates who believe in its benefits will be vocal in articulating the positive in that regard.

I think "genital mutilation" is too political, hence many in the medical community (KOLs and SMEs would shy away from these discussions and there would be a paucity of quotable evidence).

I like the reworded suggestion best as well.

I like the re-wording, jguard.

While the American Academy of Pediatrics doesn't consider circumcision to be medically necessary, there are some medical reasons for performing one.

Possible re-wording: Is circumcision a necessary medical procedure?

Evidence on this topic is here and some more here