Circumcision became common practice in the United States in the 1940s and 1950s, but pediatricians are beginning to oppose it now.
Historically, circumcision has been documented as a religious practice for people of the Jewish faith to symbolize their covenant to God since the beginning of its origins, and the Egyptians practiced circumcision more than 2000 years ago. It has evolved into a routine procedure, which for many parents, has nothing to do with religion.
The current debate is over whether circumcision is dangerous and unnecessary for newborn male infants. Opposition views circumcision as being much like a cosmetic procedure that provides no medical benefit to the child. They even point to evidence of harmful effects that can cause death in approximately 1 out of 6000 circumcisions performed per year.
The supporting side feels that circumcision is better for the child in terms of hygiene -- the area is easier to keep clean without the foreskin. Also, some supporters say circumcision serves as a prevention against cervical carcinoma, a condition that some say is worsened with the presence of smegma. However, there is nothing statistically relevant to validate those claims.
With everything that you've seen in the media, you've probably come to conclusions of your own. So this week, weigh in and share your opinions on this highly controversial issue:
Do you think that we should continue circumcising male newborn babies? Is it right or wrong? Why or why not?