Humanists differ on San Francisco circumcision ban

Tom Flynn of the Council for Secular Humanism supports the San Francisco proposal to ban circumcision, while Ronald Lindsay of the Center for Inquiry opposes it. (These appear to be their own personal views, not those of their organizations.) What I find odd is that neither Flynn nor Lindsay ever mentions the pain suffered by infant male children who have their penises cut with sharp instruments. Even granting the arguments that it's not analogous to clitoridectomy, and not risky, and that it's an important part of many people's religious practices, shouldn't there be at least some consideration of the pain that the child experiences?