|The open future of an uncircumcised boy|
A compelling argument? I can certainly see that newborn surgeries sometimes conflict with later self-fulfillment--for example, in the case of female "circumcision" and surgery for inter-sex states. But is it really self-defining to have or lack a foreskin? For the vast majority of men, I would think not.
Perhaps the best case against circumcision simply has to do with sovereignty and self-determination, where the body is concerned. My body is my birthright, not to be irreversibly tampered with except in cases of true medical necessity. It may not be terribly harmful to circumcise and may not get in the way of self-actualization, but it's an intrusion upon the boy's private territory, without a good enough reason. When all is said and done, this is the thought I find most compelling.