Circumcision controversies

Male circumcision has often been, and remains, the subject of controversy on a number of grounds—including religious, ethical, sexual, and health.

The Ancient Greeks and Romans valued the foreskin and were opposed to circumcision—an opposition inherited by the canon and secular legal systems of the Christian West that lasted at least through to the Middle Ages, according to Hodges. Traditional Judaism and Islam have advocated male circumcision as a religious obligation.

The ethics of circumcision are sometimes controversial. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the primary justification for circumcision was to prevent masturbation (which was believed to cause a wide range of medical problems). Modern proponents argue that circumcision reduces the risks of a range of infections and diseases as well as conferring sexual benefits. In contrast, opponents, particularly of infant circumcision, often question its effectiveness in preventing disease, and object to subjecting newborn boys, without their consent, to a procedure they consider to have debatable benefits, significant risks and a potentially negative impact on general health and later sexual enjoyment.

Genesis explains circumcision as a covenant with God given to Abraham, but some scholars reject the historicity of these accounts and look elsewhere for the origin of Jewish circumcision. One explanation, dating from Herodotus, is that the custom was acquired from the Egyptians, possibly during the period of enslavement. A competing hypothesis, based on linguistic/ethnographic work begun in the 19th century, suggests circumcision was a common tribal custom among many Semitic tribes, including Jews, Arabs and Phoenicians.

...
Wikipedia