Why do we still have infant male circumcision?

Season 4 of Desperate Housewives dealt with this often disregarded issue. One of the main characters actually snuck out to have a child circumcised behind her husband's back because he found it barbaric.

My question is why do more people not find it barbaric?

Science Daily published a piece the other day on just this subject and I'd like to present a few highlights (click on the link for the full article).

There is now rarely a therapeutic indication for infant circumcision

So why do we have it? Usually for religious reasons. If we accept that female circumcision is unacceptable why should a similar procedure on males be consdered not only acceptable but desirable?

Male genital mutilation is not a risk-free procedure, he adds. Far from being a harmless traditional practice, circumcision damages young boys.

It is an unnecessary surgical procedure. People who inflict these on their children are said to have Munchausen by proxy. Again I ask why is this an exception.

Male circumcision is not illegal anywhere in the world. It is a choice that parents will make on behalf of their male children, for cultural or other reasons, and regulating its provision is the wisest course of action, she concludes.

This would appear to say that cultural child abuse is acceptable. I question what is meant by 'other reasons' as religion would fall under the banner of cultural.

Barring the very few genuine medical cases where this procedure may be reccommended by a doctor there is no reason in an enlightened society to continue with this.