I was questioning circumcision a few years back, while trying to understand this God of love, and my research uncovered some revealing information, in regards to the physicall circumcision of Abraham's day.
This information is not the same from my previous research, which I can't find now , but it does speak of the same type of procedure.Abraham would have had, at the age of 99. The source was from a Christian magazine, hence I'm not including the link here. I've also shortened the original, to only include the most pertinent information, as well as omitting certain terminology that might make some uncomfortable.
Today's circumcision is a much more radical procedure, it was dictated by man, and is not the biblical commanded circumcision from God. That shouldn't be surprising to many of us here.
Abraham's circumcision was a relatively minor ritual procedure in which only the redundant end of the foreskin extending beyond the tip of the glans was removed. This was called "Milah". It is from this term that the Jewish Religious Covenant circumcision ritual Bris Milah or Brith Milah got its name.
This type of procedure would leave the forskin intact with natural development continuing, with the necessary protection of the underlying glands. The foreskin would not be stripped back off the glans and would naturally separate from the glans gradually as the child matures, much as it would had the child not been circumcised. The sensitive frenulum would not have been disturbed or moved, and the foreskin remaining would continue to cover and protect a substantial portion of the glans, especially when flaccid, and the glans would appear as uncircumcised. There would be minimal loss of sensitivity or intended protection.
Today's circumcision is nothing less than mutilation, plain and simple.
Hard to consider Abraham would have willingly gone through such a radically mutilating and painfull procedure, even for God.