I think altering a kid's body for aesthetics, whether it's ear piercing or circumcision, especially stuff that's irreversible, is stupid and morally wrong.
That said, if there is a good reason for doing something, like their health is impacted, I feel the parent has a responsibility to weigh the pros and cons. If they don't circumcise their boy as an infant, but he turns out to never wash himself and is getting constant, serious infections, then I feel that a parent should probably have him circumcised. If they don't that could be even more damaging than choosing to do the procedure. Granted this is a specific example, but I've heard lots of mothers of young boys say that the circumcision probably saved his "boyhood". The only other option would be to manhandle them daily in the bath, and that is probably closer to sexually harassing your child than helping them.
Otherwise it falls to the man when he's old enough. Most importantly though, it's not just about his physical pleasure but also his lifestyle. If the man is promiscuous, he has a responsibility to himself and his partners to consider it because being circumcised lowers the rate of HIV by 60%.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=circumcision-penis-microbiome-hiv-infection
Chamale said:
(horrible pun not intended considering the topic)
On the related note of female circumcision, unlike male circumcision it's usually done around age 10 without anesthetics, there is nothing positive that comes out of it, and it probably claims more lives than male circumcision saves, especially the forms that leave only one tiny opening (if you don't open it surgically fast enough when they are giving birth, they die). It's done for aesthetics by people who find female genitals to look too much like penises and by people who think it's horrible for women to feel any sexual arousal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
