The main health benefits purported by circumcision advocates are lower rates of HIV (Human Immuno-deficiency Virus) and UTI (urinary tract infection), however the studies that back these claims up have been criticised for numerous methodology and bias problems. Proponents also claim it is more hygienic, however this is negated through education of proper hygiene practices such as daily washing, and UTI's are commonly experienced by women and just treated with antibiotics. Other than that the culture of circumcision is justified either religiously or aesthetically, however this raises ethical questions, should religions be allowed to conduct, what is essentially, body modification? Should parents?
Should this not instead be a human right for the individual to decide when they are old enough to understand what aesthetic or religious body modifications they want made to their own body? Studies have demonstrated that circumcision removes one of the most sensitive parts of the penis, something that is rarely considered by medical studies, treating babies like animals, using traumatising and dubious control methods for questionable societal health gains. Although female genital mutilation is clearly much worse, male circumcision should still be seen as what it is - genital mutilation. This issue has been debunked, it is just waiting for half the world to catch up.