Holm Putzke is asking:
In countries where daily personal hygiene is possible and routine, there are no, or at least only highly doubtful, verifiable medical advantages of circumcising a child. Even if the removal of the foreskin could minimize the man’s risk of contracting H.I.V. or reduce his female partners’ risk of developing cervical cancer, this does not justify the circumcision of children. Whatever risks might exist for an uncircumcised man and his partners, they would not become relevant until the man is sexually active. For young boys, there are no medical benefits.
It's a helpful summary of the debate at the NYT – revealing the hysterical non-arguments of those defending this anachronism. Abraham Foxman doesn't disappoint.