They once DID remove normal tonsils and appendices for "preventative" purposes. They've stopped. I'll give you three guesses as to why
Taken your guesses?
Yup, the exact same reasons I'm opposed to the removal of foreskin: it's not necessary, and the likelihood of it making a difference in any given person is small.
You're right, in order to change the popular opinion in America (and I'll note that it seems to be slowly changing anyway), the argument needs to be made against it. Why is that? Not because there is a good argument for it, but because it is ingrained into society - the same reason it's difficult to stop female circumcision in other societies. However, this thread isn't about how to change public opinion. It started out with the question of abuse, and while semantics may lead one to question the wording, the underlying meaning was eventually brought out: "is circumcision of a boy an unnecessary and invasive medical procedure that should not be done?" The answer to that seems to be yes. As to how to get public opinion to reflect this, you've got me. But as Americans - who are decidedly, and happily I might add, ignorant of other cultures, even among their Western counterparts - come into closer contact with these other cultures, it seems that it is becoming more understood that circumcision is not necessary and not as "normal" as many Americans have come to believe. Add that to the steady flow of, at best, uncommittal statements by medical organizations, and opinion is slowly changing. I'm content to leave the issue of overall public opinion at that. One hundred years from now, I would be very surprised if circumcisions were still performed here for non-religious reasons (and I'm not even sure that they'll still be performed for religious reasons), and if they are, it will likely be a small fraction of people, just like it already is in most of the Western world.