I find that a very poor argument by a biased organisation. Ask a dentist who uses amalgams if they are safe, and he/she will say "oh yes, absolutely".

To remove a healthy part of a baby's body risking death, brain damage and impotence because it "might" lower the risk of getting HIV is just ridiculous in my mind. Responsible sexual behaviour will be the best protection against HIV.

As to urinary tract infection from not being cicumcised, I have never heard of any child having this problem and none of the boys I grew up with were cicumcised. Most probably didn't even bathe more than 2-3 times a week, if that. Kids are very open about stuff and I never heard anything as a child or a teenage about any boy having a sore penis or infection because he wasn't circumcised.

I really don't see mutilation as justifyiable because of some remote possibility of a problem arising that is caused by something else i.e. irresponsible sexual behaviour.

If grown men want to have their foreskin removed, that is up to them, but I believe it iswrong to make that decision on the behalf of an baby. Many men have suffered because of their circumcision, just like a lot of us have suffered because someone decided on our behalf that amalgam was safe. Let's not put anyone else through unnecessary suffering by making irreversible decisions on their behalf that they have to live with for the rest of their life.