Here is the problem, Dena. You "believe" it is wrong, and the UltraOrthodox Jews "believe" it is right. As a professor of such a soft science like ethics and philosophy, you should know that you cannot debate a belief.

funny a woman wrote this opinion, maybe she doesnt like they look

i agree with her.

There might be a method to eliminate the hazards other than banning the practice. Perhaps testing participants for HIV and other hazards of infection would be one way of eliminating risk.

Cutting off the end of a penis without the consent of the male to whom the penis belongs seems wrong to me in any circumstance. Performing cosmetic surgery on the genitals of newborns is one of the more bizarre rituals of our culture. One day Americans will look back in wonder at the barbarism of the practice.

"Metzitzah b'peh" (literally, "sucking by mouth") is a medieval method for cleaning the circumcision wound. Ms. Davis is correct to say that it is wrong. This is not a religious opinion; it is a medical fact. The original and still valid goal was to promote cleanliness and health and today we know much better ways to achieve that goal (thank God!) and we must use them.
Regarding the issue of circumcision in general--beyond it's Biblical source as a sign of the Covenant between God and the Jewish people--I wonder what women think. Let us know: do you prefer a circumcised penis or an uncircumcised one? And is it just what you are used to or is there some other reason for your preference? It is easy to speak of the "barbarity" of the practice. But it may be seen as akin to piercing an infant's ears. I know of no men who, as adults, regret being circumcised or women who later regret that their parents pierced their infant ears. (Surely some such people exist.) But considering it solely as a cosmetic issue, what do women prefer?

The discussion of the religious, medical, and ethical issues about the practice is appropriate. A discussion of "preferences" devalues the discussion to one that of a sensationalizing tabloid. Is that Patch wants to be?

I did not mean to sensationalize the issue. I meant to point out that there are more reasons than religious or medical that motivate parents to circumcise their sons. I apologize for misleading readers.

Looking at this from a medical safety standpoint, she is completely correct. This 'method' would subject the child to un-reasonable levels of risk. She did not say that circumcision is bad or that it should be stopped just noting that safety should be the main concern. I personally think this should be up to the family as well as they are well aware of the consequences of this practice.

In my opinion, all forms of male circumcision are a relic from the age when humans relied upon religion for answers to the mysteries that surrounded them, and also a time when religion held ultimate power. Today we have laws and science and yet this barbaric practice continues as a cultural norm. No infant should have that irrevociable choice made for him by someone else. If circumcision's religious practice is so important, why not allow the boy to make the decision when he becomes a man. Isnt that a central component of all faiths? To make a choice for youself about your beliefs? Or are we condoning the thrusting of parental religious beliefs upon the child who has no recourse, let alone voice, in the matter?