I have studied both arguments now and I think I can safely say that no real reason exists for circumcision and the notion behind it seems to be from religious backgrounds. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) states that data does exist to show that circumcision does provide potential medical benefits, however, these 'potential' benefits are in no way sufficient to recommend routine circumcision (source). Risks do exist with circumcision, as with anything, but they are rare. But the pain can last for two weeks, and can be especially intense during urination as well as an increased risk of infection leading to troubling consiquences later in life (source). While risks are rare an 8 year study showed that 4% of people who have their foreskin removed have trouble retracting it when stimulated, this is one of the more common risks (source).
Conversely the argument for it suggest that it helps with genital hygiene. However, not much conclusive evidence for this exists and the suggestion is that taking a hygienic approach during a whole lifetime is much more effective than a little snip (source). But studies also suggest that the sex lives of people with circumcised penises are often more varied, which I think is an advantage.
In my view it is essentially unwilling genital mutilation of a child, with little or no real benefits and the benefits that do exist can much more easily attained by having a more healthy and sexually safe lifestyle.
Would you ask for your vestigial tail to be removed at birth? Because it has no use and the risk of infection is less if you do.
