Indeed why wait till they are 18?  Perhaps it would be nice for them to decide for themselves if they want the procedure. If at 18 they wish to pursue faith in a particular religion and want to be circumcised, then fine.   It does seem a bit odd that a perfect little life is born and the first thing some people want to do is remove their foreskin. What is the relevance of removing a foreskin?  How does it help ones faith? It just seems very sad to violate a baby in this way. If it is done for medical reasons I don't see how anyone could disagree with it,
Posted by kirked

Offence of female genital mutilation & Male Genital Mutilation (1)A person is guilty of an offence if he excises, infibulates or otherwise mutilates the whole or any part of a girl’s labia majora, labia minora or clitoris. .(2)But no offence is committed by an approved person who performs— .(a)a surgical operation on a girl which is necessary for her physical or mental health, or .(b)a surgical operation on a girl who is in any stage of labour, or has just given birth, for purposes connected with the labour or birth. .(3)The following are approved persons— .(a)in relation to an operation falling within subsection (2)(a), a registered medical practitioner, .(b)in relation to an operation falling within subsection (2)(b), a registered medical practitioner, a registered midwife or a person undergoing a course of training with a view to becoming such a practitioner or midwife. .(4)There is also no offence committed by a person who— .(a)performs a surgical operation falling within subsection (2)(a) or (b) outside the United Kingdom, and .(b)in relation to such an operation exercises functions corresponding to those of an approved person. .(5)For the purpose of determining whether an operation is necessary for the mental health of a girl it is immaterial whether she or any other person believes that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual . .Male circumcision has traditionally been presumed to be legal under British law, however some legal commentators have argued that there is no solid foundation for this view in English law.The passage of the Human Rights Act 1998 has led to some speculation that  the lawfulness of the circumcision of male children is unclear.Other countries also grapple with the issue of circumcision (of both sexes). In Finland for example FGM is specifically outlawed and male circumcision can only be undertaken when there is a compelling therapeutic reason.  In Israel it is lawful to circumcise boys and interestingly the government are proposing to outlaw ‘after death’ circumcision.  In the United States just 2 months ago the New York City District Attorney announced that he is investigating the death of a baby who contracted herpes after a "ritual circumcision with oral suction," in an ultra-Orthodox Jewish ceremony known in Hebrew as metzitzah b'peh.Previously, in  2004 the death of twins was caused by the same mohel; and in the more recent one, a mohel infected the penile wounds with Type 1 herpes I (HSV-1), which affects the mouth and throat. It is different from Type 2 or genital herpes (HSV-2), which is a sexually transmitted disease and can cause deadly infections when a newborn passes through an infected birth canal.I would be interested to know the laws about circumcision in other countries. Isn’t it time to put an end to all forms of mutilation of children’s genitals unless it must be done for medical reasons?. A small baby cannot give consent and  and once the ‘operation’ is performed it is essentially irreversible (there have been efforts at revision surgery).
Posted by kirked