I’m not going to get into debate on the ethicality of infant circumcision, but there are zero counties that have outlawed it, so there isn’t a jurisdiction on earth that considers it genital mutilation.

As far as their risk tolerances go, ignoring ethical considerations their stance is that the medical benefits slightly outweigh the risks. The view of most European medical associations is that the risks slightly outweigh the benefits.

Neither position is very far from the other in terms of risk analysis.

> For example, is the AAP incorporating the fact that many babies today have greatly reduced access to another adult or older kids to watch and listen to? What if (some) "screen time" is better than the minimum from a tired mom and dad for them?

Do you have kids? Babies require constant adult supervision, so there should never be a time when they don’t have access to an adult.

TV under 2 is detrimental to language development. Is it possible that a parking a baby in front of a TV all day is better than parking a baby in front of a gray wall with no stimuli or interaction and letting them scream? Sure. But no one has that data, or ever will. And no medical agency anywhere in the world is going to issue advice like that.

Smoking is probably protective against Parkinson’s disease but no one is going to add a disclaimer to their PSAs to tell you that. That’s not how public health agencies work.