Pros And Cons Of Circumcision

The Debate on Circumcision When it comes to the topic of circumcision, most of us will readily agree that we have been told that it is normal and the thought of an uncircumcised penis is “strange”. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of why were we taught uncircumcised penises are not normal? Whereas some are convinced that men are supposed to be circumcised, others maintain that it is not necessary and/or harmful. Circumcision is technically defined as the surgical removal of the foreskin, the tissue covering the head (glans) of the penis (“Circumcision Basics”). This procedure once accepted as a norm has become quite controversial (Macris and Milos). At the end of the nineteenth century, Britain, followed by its white colonies and the USA, took it up as a health measure for infants and young boys (“Introduction”).
Circumcised males are actually a minority in the world; it’s only popular in the United States and a few other places where FGC (female genital cutting) is popular such as, but not limited to, parts in the Middle East and Asia (Bodenner and “Female genital cutting”). There is no single history of circumcision. There are two sorts of circumcision, ritual and medical. It was part of a religious ritual within Judaism and Islam along with others (Macris and Milos). On one hand, defenders of ritual circumcision look at the health benefits claimed by those who perform it for medical reasons. On the other hand, those who perform it for medical reasons try to argue it as an ancient operation, performed by many different cultures (“Introduction”). The US is the only country in the world where the majority of baby boys have part of their penises cut off for non-religious reasons (“Circumcision in the USA”). In recent discussions of male circumcision, a controversial issue has been whether infant males should be circumcised when they are