Monotremes don’t, so you’ve got that wrong. Most non-primate mammals have a penile sheath which is analogous to a foreskin but not exactly the same thing. You also wrong to suggest that nature doesn’t make mistakes. The recurrent laryngeal nerve? Retinal nerves the wrong way around? Eyes for blind cave animals? Millions of years of evolution failed to fix those blunders. Your logic is also fallacious – look up “appeal to nature fallacy”.
As medical circumcision confers a lifetime of health benefits, reducing morbidity and mortality, and the risk:benefit ratio is optimal in infancy, it could be argued (and is by some) that it would actually be unethical to deny the procedure to infants when the parents wish it.

No-one has the right to alter another human’s body without their consent, barring a life threatening situation. So, yes, the circumcision of children is a human rights violation.

Your arguments about life expectancy and infant mortality are asinine. These things have far more to do with how developed the country is, than whether the men have foreskins or not.

The Sydney Children’s Hospital statement is misleading, out-of-date, and unsupported. Where do they get their figure of 20 complications from? This contradicts the largest study so far in a developed world setting (USA) of 1.4 million infant circumcisions which found a complication rate of 0.4%, mostly trivial things easily remedied: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24820907/ So that would be 4 trivial complications, not 20.

I’d also question their figure of 8 infant UTIs averted. There are even lower NNTs cited in the literature, and the statement “there is no difference in older boys” is just false. The protection is lifelong: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23201382/

Also false is the assertion that: “With normal personal hygiene, the circumcised penis is no cleaner than the uncircumcised penis” as studies have shown the biome of the penis changes after circumcision with fewer harmful anaerobes and fungi: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36557565/

I note the same Sydney document makes the misleading claim “Penile cancer is very rare, with an incidence of 1 in 250,000 men in Australia”. That is a very rough per annum figure. The lifetime risk is around 1 in 1000, plus or minus a few hundred.

In any case, the argument for infant circumcision is not based on one benefit in isolation (e.g. UTIs) but on all of them combined. As well as averting >8 infant UTIs, those 1000 circumcisions would also avert scores more over the lifetimes of the males, plus many cases of phimosis, lichen sclerosus, balantitis, viral and ulcerative STDs, and one case of penile cancer and a couple of prostate cancer, which is anything but rare. In short, the benefits comfortably exceed the risks.

The Sydney statement is based on the RACP’s, which has been shown by other Aussies, to be not evidence-based: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22805686/ which perhaps explains why it is so bad.

I’d rather rely on scientific studies in peer-reviewed journals than dated, secondary sources that make misleading, even false, claims, and do not provide their sources to allow for fact-checking.

Worldometer lists male life expectancy by country. The first five are Switzerland, Hong Kong, Iceland, Australia and Singapore. The sixth is Israel. Israel clearly does well, but the non-circumcising countries of Switzerland, Hong Kong and Iceland do even better. See https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/

What about infant mortality? Overall infant mortaility is lowest in a brace of European countries and Japan at 2 per thousand. Israel comes in the next brace of countries with 3 per thousand. Once again, Israel does well, but other countries do better. See https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/infant_mortality/

These figures do not support the contention that infant circumcision confers any benefit to life expectancy.

The Sydney Children’s Hospital says this about hygiene:
https://www.schn.health.nsw.gov.au/files/factsheets/male_infant_circumcision-en.pdf

Hygiene
With normal personal hygiene, the circumcised penis is no cleaner than the uncircumcised penis.

It says this about urinary tract infections:

“Some research in North America has shown that boys, who were circumcised as small babies, have less chance of developing urinary tract infections in the first year of life,than those who are uncircumcised (there is no difference in older boys). However, the numbers of uncircumcised boys who will get urinary infections is small. If 1000 well boys are circumcised, 8 infections will be prevented, but 20 will have a complication related to the circumcision. In those boys with an underlying urinary tract problem, circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of recurrent urinary tract infections, particularly if still in nappies.”

I’d rather rely on this information than alarmist opinions about the supposed danger of feral foreskins from people with an axe to grind.

If only it was so simple. But as a scientist I cannot deny the compelling evidence that the procedure has wide-ranging benefits that outweigh the risks, and the balance is optimal in infancy when the recipient cannot give consent, so then the parents have to give consent on his behalf. If it was not for this I would be joining Sanchez (but without the pseudoscience) in saying that it should only be done at an age of consent, or when forced by medical necessity.

Only if the surgery is necessary. Surgery should only be performed when needed and other effective, non invasive means have failed. Why does the idea of someone having this procedure bother you so much? Is it because most wouldn’t be up for it if given the choice? Even in your own home country your arguments are considered fringed. You seem obsessed with pushing this practice despite having no credentials whatsoever. Why is a mineral chemist lording over a comments section viscously attacking anyone that comments positively to Sanchez’s article? The science says? I’m sorry but many in the medical community are still debating this topic and with good reason. You use the phrase “the science” the same way a creationist preacher uses the words “the bible”. Why continue to dogmatically push your cherry picked studies and statistics?

Even if doing so may one day save their lives? Or at least save them from debilitating medical conditions? One cannot escape the fact that medical male circumcision protects, to varying degrees, from a wide range of conditions, some life-threatening, and some common. And it does so with no adverse effect on sexual function, pleasure or satisfaction. And, like it or not, from the medical, practical and cost perspectives, infancy is the best time for it. That is just what the science says, and no amount of pseudoscience from the unreliable Internet sources Sanchez uncritically copies from will change that

Healthy children, whatever their sex or gender, should be free from having the most intimate, private parts of their bodies irreversibly altered.