Here are your arguments:
Human Rights:
If you take your child to the doctor and ask the doctor to amputate healthy tissue, by law the doctor can NOT. It is a written violation of bodily integrity to remove healthy tissue from a non-consenting minor. This is true for every single inch of a child's body, except a male foreskin. Why should a male foreskin be exempt from the law that protects every other part of a child's body? What makes a boy's foreskin the exception? It is composed of the same tissues found in a girl's foreskin, though it has a great deal more function. You couldn't even have a doctor pluck a fingernail from your child, unless there were a problem that failed to be corrected with more conservative treatment. When it comes to the bodies of children our nation and pretty much the entire world has text that states nothing can be removed surgically unless there is a problem that can not be resolved in a more conservative manor. This is what sets circumcision apart from parental choice. Circumcision is genital surgery and when done routinely it removes perfectly healthy tissue from a minor boy. You want to tell me that it should be up to parents, then you have to change all the laws to say that parents can request ANY non-therapeutic surgery on any part of a child's body. Boy would that be a trip! The medical profession is much to blame. They are violating the terms of their own oath that they took, to do no harm. Circumcision is harmful. We are also responsible because, by continuing circumcision, we are not upholding our own laws that were put in place to protect the bodies of innocent minors. Cosmetic surgery to healthy parts of a minor is a human rights violation, as we consider every human being to have this intrinsic right to bodily integrity. Not only would I consider it to be a human rights violation but I also consider it to violate the equal protection clause of our constitution that states ALL persons shall receive equal protection under the laws (clearly this is not happening).
(I must correct something I said. I said that a minor (male) foreskin is the only exception where parents get to alter their child's body. There was recently a case that went to court where a father wanted to circumcise his 14 year old son. The judge found in favor of the boy, who did not want to be circumcised. So based on that ruling we now have a precedent set. The precedent gives any boy age 14 or older the right to decide over the appearance and function of his sex organ. You can't remove the foreskin of a boy 14 or older without his consent. So the exception really only applies to male foreskins where the owner is under age 14. It is pretty darn sad that a 9 year old or even a newborn doesn't have the same rights to his penis as a 14 year old.)
Pain and not remembering:
Every person who has recollection of their circumcision describes it as a "sexual torture". When the baby's penis is first touched by the doctor he will get an erection. The sensation of the cold sterilizing liquid will send sensations to the brain. This initial manipulation is thought to simulate the pleasure sensors and immediately following these sensors are overwhelmed with excruciating pain. This is thought to leave a lasting psychosexual imprint on a man. Many infants pass into a form of nuerogenic shock. If you speak with survivors of major animal attacks they will describe this rush of adrenaline as they pass into shock. This rise in adrenaline is recorded during infant circumcisions. Also, a measurement of cortisol levels in the brain of circumcised babies is much higher even 6 months post-op. However, the pain is really irrelevant. Even if it were painless circumcision would still be removing healthy, functional tissue from a minor boy. The pain (or lack there of) does not change the fact of WHAT circumcision is, an amputation of healthy, functional tissue.
Your partners statements about not using any anesthetic and not remembering are bone-chilling. Harm is harm. It doesn't matter if you do it when someone is too little to remember, it will forever imprint the mind and it is still harm.
Medical arguments:
With no other body part do we use amputative surgery as preventative medicine. Any potential medical benefits of circumcision that you can list can be treated in a less conservative manner than amputation. In fact, the only situations in which amputation is a first chosen treatment option are in the case of malignancy, gangrene, frostbite or serious trauma. Remember that with ALL body parts there are potential things that can go wrong. This is no more true for the foreskin than the ears, eyes, toes, etc. In fact medical ethics states that "amputation is not an ethical treatment UNLESS more conservative treatment has proven unsuccessful". There are studies showing the potential health benefits of female circumcision, such as reduction in HIV transmission. We don't entertain the idea of these findings simply because there are less severe manners in which to avoid HIV without sacrificing genital tissue. So if you want to take your child to the doctor to have something removed: 1. there must be a medical need and 2. more conservative treatment must have failed. In short, the same treatments that are used for woman's genitals can be used for men.
I might add that no medical organization in the entire world recommends RIC. This should speak to the relevance of any "studies" which try to demonstrate medical benefits of circumcision. Each organization has made a statement to the tune of, "the potential benefits do not outweigh the risks of the surgery and guaranteed consequences". I use the term studies loosely b/c you can pretty much trace all of these studies throughout history to a key circ-fetishist and all of them have been proven invalid by followup studies. This is why it is not uncommon to hear the phrase, "Circumcision is a solution in search of a disease".
If after all that you still can not get through to him then you will just have to put your foot down and be the momma bear. As mothers we have a duty to use our instincts and to protect our children from harm.
