Cutting to the Chase

Circumcision is not exclusively a religious medical procedure; some people are in favor of it for hygiene preferences.  

Foreskins from circumcisions, as a medical procedure byproduct, are used as one of the primary sources for growing skin used in skin graft procedures, particularly for burn victims.  Each foreskin can produce up to 4 ACRES of grafting tissue.  

Opponents of the procedure believe it amounts to the sexual mutilation of male infants.  I found this site to be very informative, and persuasive, especially the first item on this list from the site:

No national or international medical association recommends routine circumcision.

Only the USA circumcises the majority of newborn boys without medical or religious reason.

Medicalized circumcision began during the 1800s to prevent masturbation, which was believed to cause disease.

Today's parents are learning that the foreskin is a normal, protective, functioning organ.

Today's parents realize circumcision harms and has unnecessary risks.

Circumcision denies a male's right to genital integrity and choice for his own body.

and this, from the MN chapter of the organization that circumcision is extraordinarily painful, and that it is commonly performed without anesthesia, despite anesthesia being strongly recommended.

I doubt that most adult males would choose to have the procedure performed as a consenting adult, even with the religious requirements for it.

Yes? No? Should it be up to the parents, or should it be a procedure that is delayed until the child can express an opinion for themself?  Does public health policy have a role to play in THIS decision?

Or.........is this an exclusively religious decision? Is a ban on circumcision anti-Semitic?  Is a similar ban on female circumcision - religiously intolerant? Or does it not equate?

From Reuters and Yahoo.com: 

California prevents ban on male circumcision

By Mary Slosson | Reuters – 3 hrs ago

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - California Governor Jerry Brown announced on Sunday that he signed a bill preventing local authorities from banning the practice of male circumcision.

The bill, which takes effect immediately, comes in the wake of an effort by a San Francisco group opposed to male circumcision to enforce a city-wide ban of the practice in a November ballot measure.

That effort was struck down in late July by a California judge who said it would infringe on religious freedom. The measure was removed from the November ballot.

The measure, which garnered 12,000 signatures of support, would have made it a misdemeanor crime to circumcise a boy before he is 18 years old in San Francisco, regardless of the parents' religious beliefs.

A dozen petitioners sued to block the initiative at the time. A similar effort in Santa Monica, west of Los Angeles, was withdrawn.

Circumcision is a ritual obligation for infant Jewish boys and also a common rite among Muslims, who account for the largest share of circumcised men worldwide.

The move to outlaw circumcision in San Francisco raised alarm bells for Jewish groups.

In June, the Anti-Defamation League condemned a comic book created by supporters of the anti-circumcision movement that it said contained grotesque anti-Semitic imagery. The comic featured a character named "Monster Mohel" as an evil villain.

A mohel is a Jewish individual specifically trained to perform the ritual circumcision of infant boys.

(Editing by Ellen Wulfhorst)