It's definitely difficult to convey tone in Internet discussions, and after re-reading my post it may have come off as brash, that was not my intention. I can see that you genuinely don't understand the controversy, and that's fine, I was just hoping to convey our position in a reasonable manner after all the 'dick cheese/mutilation' posts.
It's also important to note that this procedure that is performed without consent carries health risks. Orayn posted the numbers earlier and they were something like 2-10% (complications ranging from penile damage to extreme cases that can result in death). These can admittedly be reduced if practiced by a professional in the proper environment, yet their is still a risk and we are still talking about irreversible modification to a non-consenting person.
Two points about your (somewhat silly) post:
1. The risk of 'complications' for circumcision is due almost entirely to minor bleeding, which stops when pressure is applied. Think of any small cut. 2-10% (from Wikipedia) is only one guess; another one (also from Wikipedia) is 0.2-0.6%. The complication rate is astronomically low.
2. Parents decide all the time what is in the best interests of their child. That is their JOB as parents. By making choices throughout the child's life, they will cause intentional and unintentional changes in the child's physical and psychological development.
Personally I don't really care about circumcision, but I want an honest debate about this, incorporating a few things:
1. A realistic complication rate
2. Real health benefits or disadvantages
3. Real evidence of changed sexual satisfaction (check Wikipedia, the results are totally mixed up so I'm sure supporters of either side will have plenty to arm themselves with).
4. Avoidance of silliness about 'trauma' a newborn suffers from an extremely minor procedure relative to the rest of their time as a newborn with an undeveloped brain.