I think it bears asking the question -- as part of your homework assignment and as something the instructors need to be thinking about before they ask this question of future students: which other body part would we consider cutting off a baby to prevent a hypothetical future issue? How about breast buds on baby girls? The lifetime risk of breast cancer for US women is currently something like 1 in 8 and it would be a LOT less intrusive to cut their breast buds off at birth, before they develop. Think about what a fairly small wound that would be -- yes, it would be painful, but not nearly as painful as surgery, chemo, and radiation later on!
To posit the question that there are pros and cons to genital reduction surgery on boys assumes:
- that parents have the right to perform cosmetic surgery on their sons for any trivial reason whatsoever
- that the foreskin, amongst all body parts that may eventually be afflicted with a problem or a disease, is disposable
- that the foreskin has no function and no value
- that boys do not have an inherent human right to intact genitals as girls do.
If it were me, I'd write the paper about what is wrong with the question, not about the "pros and cons" of circumcision. Or else I'd write about why we should consider circumcising baby girls for cultural and health reasons. Because the question itself is so totally biased and shaped by culture, not science.