The British Medical Journal has published a pro & con debate on whether infant male circumcision is neutral, harmful, or beneficial, and if there are demonstrable medical benefits should operation be put off until the guy can decide for himself. Reader responses are included, too, so the piece is long and sometimes a bit loose, but it also exhibits a high degree of sensitivity.
The New York Times' recap, meanwhile, has been cut significantly, is much shorter, and loses a lot of the flavor of the original, but it still gets the job done.
Head to head [heh -ed.]: Is infant male circumcision an abuse of the rights of the child? No
Is infant male circumcision an abuse of the rights of the child? Yes [bmj.com via nyt]
The Rights of Baby Boys [nyt]