Dave, thanks for getting back. I think we might be in danger of reaching some sort of agreement.
Let me try to outline what we might be agreeing about:
1) several posters have certainly over-stated their positions in such absurd language that any sympathy with their argument is counter-acted by their virulent technicolor posturing. (You are not in this category)
2) You seem able to deal with evidence presented. Thus you do not dismiss people who say things with which you might once have disagreed.
3) you seem to be pragmatic.
So far, all good.
The only remaining difference between us, you will correct me if I am wrong here, is that my position starts from a general ethic "do no harm", which I have tried to extend to this current issue. Where we might differ is that I cannot see what, if any, principle informs your claimed 'neutrality'. I am assuming that you would be opposed to female genital mutiliation? So, if that is the case, why are you 'neutral' about interfering with the genitals of boys?
While I support circumcision in cases where it is required for the health of the child (or if freely chosen by an informed male adult, of course), I do not support it as a generalised routine procedure. The data simply do not underpin that policy. Yet for many years that was more or less what happened in the U.S.
My remaining question...are you OK with circumcision even it is NOT of medical benefit to the child?
One last cut and paste comment....
I don't have a problem with Matt's position at all. In fact I believe he did what EVERY parent should do. Weigh the evidence and make the best decision you can. That is sort of parenting 101. Good for Matt.
Good, we agree, but do you not accept that Matt's decision is rather special in this context because of his medical qualification and 20 years of clinical experience?
He decided NOT to do to his son what was done to him. He is probably the best qualified on this thread to make such a decision. Thus this argument is not going to be settled by a simple show of hands as basic psychology 101 tells us that people conform to cultural norms. Matt has employed medical science to break free of those norms.
Which, in my book, makes his vote rather more persuasive than mine or yours. He has actual clinical expertise. I know several Jewish doctors who have had their sons circumcised. But only one who refused the procedure, in spite of his wife's insistence.
Who has the greatest courage in that scenario?