To save you from having to read all that the general conclusions that all of these position papers reach is that neonatal male circumcision carries both benefits and risks, but is generally a safe elective procedure when performed by a competent medical practitioner.
So is a full mastectomy and lymph gland removal. Or an ear lobe removal. Or a full facial tattoo. What's your point?
None of these organizations condemn nor recommend against it.
Well done. You found some American medical institutions that are
neutral on it. Yet, the British, Canadian, Australian, Dutch, and fuck knows who all else, are against elective circumcision.
So again bullshit on the child abuse unless you think all these physicians are part of a conspiracy to justify child abuse.
Don't be ridiculous. It's nothing to do with a perceived conspiracy. It's whether or not you think voluntarily presenting your baby to a doctor to chop off a body part for no reason is a good or bad thing, and whether you believe ignorance or 'going along with consensus' is a valid excuse. And it's whether or not you think doctors who go along with it,
who have the option to refuse, are wrong or right, or accountable for the act.