It's arguably a still serious issue: circumcision. There is a strangely vehement polemic about circumcision. Strange because of its vehemence.The case for circumcision (as supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics) is based on potential medical benefits:

• Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis. However, boys with uncircumcised penises can be taught to wash regularly beneath the foreskin.

• Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later.

• Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential.

• Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.

• Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.

The polemic may be said to have started with the shift from a Jewish worship of Jesus, represented by his brother, the prophet James, and the gentile worship of Jesus, represented by Paul and the evolution of Christianity. As a separate religion, initially proselytized to Greeks and Romans, the shedding of Judaic laws expedited the acceptance of Jesus as a divinity and the interblending of the gospels with the fluidity of the old religions..

"Perhaps the most cogent argument against circumcision is the experience of pain and its possibly enduring effects."

.A key component, one of the many that James inveighed against denying, was circumcision, a most sacred covenant: “Great is circumcision, for it counterbalances all the [other] laws of the Torah” (Nedarim 32a).The opposition to circumcision stems primarily from claims that it causes sexual impairment:

• Mechanical function. The foreskin provides mechanical functions to facilitate intromission and penetration. Several authorities observe ... that excision of the foreskin by circumcision increases the force required to penetrate by ten-fold.

• Elasticity. The foreskin has a layer of smooth muscle ... important in erogenous sensation.

• Erogenous tissue. the foreskin is ...a specific erogenous zone.

• Impotence and sexual dysfunction. Circumcision has long been associated with an increased incidence of impotence.

• Premature ejaculation. The presence of the foreskin, therefore, may make it easier to avoid premature ejaculation, while its absence would make it more difficult to avoid premature ejaculation.

• Inability to ejaculate or delayed ejaculation. While some circumcised males may suffer from a tendency toward premature ejaculation, others find that they have great difficulty in ejaculating.

• Loss of sexual pleasure. 48 percent of Korean men in a survey experienced loss of masturbatory pleasure after (adult) circumcision.

• Sexual behavior.  Circumcised males are more likely to masturbate (sic!).

• Value to female partners. The presence of the foreskin is reported to be stimulating to the female.

While neither argument, pro or con, is terribly convincing, the almost ferocious assertion that circumcised men are less sexually potent or pleasing seems at least exaggerated and perhaps insipiently antisemitic.Perhaps the most cogent argument against circumcision is the experience of pain and its possibly enduring effects. While there are organized campaigns against circumcision because it causes pain, there are also methods of pain amelioration that do not include medications. But pain in newborns can be a serious issue. Birth trauma, just the effects of forcibly being ejected from the womb surely causes pain. Babies receive a  number of painful procedures such as heel sticks and immunizations. Babies born prematurely or with other medical problems are subjected to additional painful interventions. As a psychiatrist, I am naturally concerned about the possible delayed effects of pain in newborns as well as in childhood and beyond, both physical and psychological pain and trauma. But the effects of circumcision are difficult to sort out.And remember: the phallus and its cohort, the phallic symbol, are always represented as an erect penis with the foreskin retracted and the glans fully visible. It has formed the basis of religious worship. pornographic exemplification, and male power imprints. Is the phallus somehow reconciled with the circumcised flaccid penis? Is there any way to know, any way to firmly state a reason for a preference?Does anyone really care?