Grumble,

I agree with you that circumcision need not be propagated. We decided to not circumcise our son.

However, to respond to the question of why would there be a foreskin if it was not meant to be there, one must admit that, as it fails to perform any biologically active function, it may fall into the category of vestigial organ. I’m using the term "vestigial" in the sense of an organ which is no longer or not being used as it is in most other animals.

An example of such a structure is the pelvis of whales. All tetrapods (including whales) have pelvic bones. In most animals the pelvic bones are needed in order to be able to move the lower or rear set of limbs for the purpose of locomotion. In some species, such as whales, these limbs don't exist for the most part - although vestiges of them may remain. Despite this lack of any need for them, whales still have pelvic bones. They are quite small compared to their counterparts in other animals, but they exist.

Another example is the appendix. In humans, the appendix has little apparent function, although it may store some immune cells. However, the analogous organ in many other species does have obvious function. Moreover, the human appendix is positively disadvantageous in the sense that it is subject to nasty infections that can be fatal. The appendix is a vestigial organ since it does not serve a function like the homologous organs in other animals.

If you grant that vestigial organs exist, then if the foreskin is considered to be vestigial, the justification for the procedure becomes less difficult to defend.

__________________
Eudaimonia