"I live in a country where most males are circumcised"
You've checked them have you?

"the only ones I know who've suffered any ill effects"
I could take a small child and cut the end of their little finger off and they'd grow up to suffer no 'ill effects' except for occasional malpractice accidents.... doesn't make it right to do does it...

Oh... wait... I asked this question before... and you couldn't put a good answer to it then either...

You also chose not to respond to bobad post... So I'm gonna quote it here so you have no excuse except being out to sea....

----------------------------------------------------------------------
A common error made by those who want to justify infant male circumcision on the basis of medical benefits is that they believe that as long as some such benefits are present, circumcision can be justified as therapeutic, in the sense of preventive health care. This is not correct. A medical-benefits or "therapeutic" justification requires that overall the medical benefits sought outweigh the risks and harms of the procedure required to obtain them, that this procedure is the only reasonable way to obtain these benefits, and that these benefits are necessary to the well-being of the child. None of these conditions is fulfilled for routine infant male circumcision. If we view a child's foreskin as having a valid function, we are no more justified in amputating it than any other part of the child's body unless the operation is medically required treatment and the least harmful way to provide that treatment.

From Margaret Somerville, director of McGill University's Mcgill centre of Medicine, Ethics and Law
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll wager you're still gonna be out to sea...

You keep talking about benefits... like???