Circumcision is an issue that triggers sharp and divided responses because it addresses the most personal and deep aspects of our lives: religion, parenthood, and sexuality.

I recently came across this piece that broke down the arguments for and against the procedure–slicing off the foreskin of the penis–in an interesting and thoughtful manner. (The author actually didn’t know he was circumcised until he was 19 and was angry when he found out.)

For my experience, I grew up within the culture of northern Minnesota, where the practice was normal. In fact, not being circumcised was a trigger for embarrassment. Having experienced life away from the U.S., however, I now see that circumcision worldwide isn’t normal. More important, viewing my culture from afar allowed me to see the practice objectively.

I asked, “What would aliens think looking down on Earth if they saw what over half of American parents do to their newborn sons?” This indicated to me how unnecessary–even odd–circumcision is.

So why do it?

People argue that it’s because of health. More pressing factors, I think, are religion and culture.

Culture is no small or unimportant thing. I’ve discovered that people elsewhere do more extreme things to their bodies to fit into the group norm. And whether it’s circumcision or clothing or tattoos or hair or whatever, it’s no fun being different than the group. Ask this to the uncircumcised boys in my high school locker room.

More significant for Jews and Muslims (and as I found out recently, the Maasai people of Tanzania), circumcision is a religion rite. To deny this custom would be hollowing out part of the richness of their tradition.

Regarding the health argument, I saw these billboards in Africa advertising the benefits of circumcision:

Studies show that for African men who don’t wear condoms, circumcised men are less likely to transmit HIV than those who aren’t. America, of course, doesn’t have the problem of HIV as Tanzanians have, and American men are more willing to use protection. But there are other health benefits for circumcision, such as fewer infections for boys who don’t wash properly.

Also of note is that though the procedure isn’t severe, it also isn’t like clipping one’s fingernails. You’re removing a part of the body that won’t come back and some argue is necessary for full functionality. It’s a bloody procedure and one that undoubtedly hurts the baby.

As was argued well in the article linked above, I think the bottom line is that for Americans there are cultural benefits of circumcision–religion or not–and those have a rightful place in the debate. Outside of the culture, however, one sees that the procedure isn’t as automatic as many in the Midwest deem it.

Because we’re dealing with that part of the body, the stakes are raised, but the question to ask is this: Are you going to do to your baby what’s normal given that there is no significant health benefit and even some harm involved? Or are you going to withhold performing on your son what most others do at the benefit of the baby being left natural but risking having your boy being different than most of the others?

People argue adamantly on either side. And exaggerated claims of  benefits and harms are given due to the touchy nature of the debate. A final thing to keep in mind is that the decision isn’t as dramatic as those on either extreme argue. Whether a man is circumcised or not probably isn’t going to affect his life all that much.