In my view, the burden of proof falls on medical intervention. I wouldn't allow them to ever remove my child's appendix unless I thought there was good reason. Heck, I won't give my kid Tylenol without a good reason. If someone wants me to have minor surgery performed on my son (which is what circumcision is), then there must be some sound justification for it. Surgery, even minor surgery, carries risks and side effects. With circumcision, people seem to take the exact opposite approach. Let's do it unless there is reason not to. Honestly, that was almost the approach I took. It just seemed easier to do what everyone else does and not to think about it. After all what guy wants to think about foreskin? But I realised that I had a responsibility as a parent to think about it. When I did, I didn't think that the burden of proof was met. Think about the reasons offered in this thread. His son wasn't made fun of in the locker room. So effectively we're talking about cosmetic surgery on a newborn to remove a perfectly normal part of the body, so that later they won't be made fun of. Is this for real? Does that sound crazy to anyone else? I don't mean any disrespect to that poster. I just think our society is so used to the notion of circumcision that we don't stop to think how weird it is.