No Need To Get Snippy About It

For a good part of our history, circumcision has been a process that we performed without  much thought.  It was a suggested process for cleanliness and health reasons, but without much scientific backing.  In the 1960s a trend began where parents did not circumcise their male children, and according to this article nearly half of male children born in the US are not circumcised.  The anti-circumcision group drew from the Center for Disease Control's neutrality on the subject.  Due to some recent findings, that neutrality has changed to leaning towards circumcision again, as a way to improve overall health and in particular sexually transmitted diseases. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics, currently neutral on whether to circumcise, are drafting new policies in light of recent studies suggesting circumcision helps prevent transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

The studies driving the new recommendations, based on clinical trials in sub-Saharan Africa and published in recent years in the Lancet medical journal, found that circumcised men had a 60 percent lower incidence of contracting HIV from heterosexual sex than their uncircumcised peers.

Another study, published in January in the Lancet, found that women with circumcised partners were 28 percent less likely to contract the human papillomavirus (HPV), a common STD that can cause cervical cancer, than women with uncircumcised partners.

The article does a good job of explaining both sides of the argument.  Both sides agree on the most important thing: this shouldn't be done without research and consideration.  It's up to the parents to decide whether or not to circumcise their children, but to do it without any reason beyond "I want him to match his father" isn't making a solid choice.