Whether the assumptions were correct or not during heydays of circumcision is not the issue. The issue is that parents, in those days, were convinced of the net benefits of circumcision and had no problems getting their sons circumcised. In fact, the mentality was such that NOT doing it was doing a disfavour to your son. (he'd get cancer, he would be ridiculed for being different etc etc etc).
In other words, in an environment where circumcsion is seen as beneficial, parents have no problems electing to have their son snipped.
Sure, in an environment where circumcision is seen as beneficial parents their is a tendency for the parents to not have an issue making the decision to have their son snipped. Unfortunately, this is true not only back in the heydays of circumcision but even now. Even though more accurate information is now available the decision is made either in ignorance or it is ignored in favour of tradition, like father like son or for religious reasons.
Your original question does not reflect the statement quoted above. (See below).
so today, if parents, after carefully considering/studying the issue, still consider that circumcision provides sufficient benefits, shoudln't they be allowed to have their son snipped ? Parents make a lot of choices on behalf of their children that "guide" them in a certain way and thus deprive that child of "other ways".
Your question asks if parents should be able to make the decision if they research the subject and conclude that it circumcision is beneficial. My answer is still "NO". There is not any concrete information that circumcision is beneficial. All medical associations currently state that there are not any significant medical benefits associated with circumcision. There are undisputed studies that do prove that the foreskin is functional, erogenous tissue.
The fact that the foreskin is functional, erogenous tissue is enough in itself to justify the institution of laws to abolish non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors. Removal of the foreskin, in the very least, permanently alters the future sexual experiences of the individual. Such decisions should only be made by the individual that will be so affected.
Even if there are benefits health related to circumcision, (e.g. controversial studies showing reduction in HIV transmission through heterosexual sex) the decision to take advantage of those health benefits and accept the loss of the foreskin's functional benefits should only be made by the owner of the penis.
