International experts have backed the use of male circumcision in the prevention of HIV.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6502855.stm

One might remove the labia minora and get the same "benefit" for women.

"And they stressed there was no evidence yet as to whether circumcision has any impact on the risk of infection for the woman or on the risk among men who have sex with other men."

"However, we must be clear: male circumcision does not provide complete protection against HIV."

"Men and women who consider male circumcision as an HIV preventive method must continue to use other forms of protection such as male and female condoms, delaying sexual debut and reducing the number of sexual partners."

The HIV debate is a red herring.

The question is:

Is the bodily modification of infants an abuse of their rights given their inability to give consent to these procedures?

It's only a factor where genital hygiene is either difficult or not customary. Its real purpose is to make sex less satisfying.

After I was circumcised, I was unable to walk for months!