Is male infant circumcision equivalent to child abuse?

  • Antiquated, pitiless atrocity performed on newborn American males.

    Coming from England, where circumcision was certainly not the norm as I was growing up in the '40s and '50s, I am appalled at the number of parents who still opt for this unnecessary barbarism on their infant boys. There seems to be no feeling of the need to question the practice - breastfeeding, immunization, formula, they are all questioned and discussed, but surgically removing a piece of a healthy newborn boy's sexual organ appears to be so much a matter of fact decision, a matter of course, that the topic is rarely raised.

  • His body, his choice!

    Circumcision is unnecessary, it is painful, and it involves a part of a boy's body that should be his choice to decide what happens to it. A common pro-circ argument is that he will be protected from HIV/AIDS if he is circumcised, and the truth is, a condom will prevent that, there is no need to cut off a healthy, functioning, beneficial part of his body to protect him from HIV. And wouldn't it just make more sense to encourage him to have safe sex or be abstinent than to cut off a part of his body without his consent? It makes more sense to me!
    Why is it that touching a child's genitals is considered child sexual abuse, but cutting off a part of a baby boy's genitals isn't? That makes absolutely no sense.
    He has just as much right to his own body as women do to theirs.

  • Would you like being held down to have the most sensitive part of your genitals cut off?

    I was trained to do circumcisions and could not believe the utter insanity of it all. The babies screamed horribly and tried their hardest to break out of the restraints. They were in terrible pain. It is unjustifiable to do this "procedure" on people who cannot consent and when it serves no purpose: it does not diagnose, treat or prevent anything except normal sexual function. The Europeans think we are crazy and they are right on this one. No disease, no consent=no surgery.

  • Logically speaking...

    yes it is basically child abuse. it is permanently reducing the child to subhuman by stripping them of their self ownership forever. forcing them to live in a body that they were not born with and may not want. However I do not think that (most) parents who do this to their children are child abusers. they are just brainwashed by it's social acceptance. This of course does not include when it is medically necessary, amputating a limb when medically needed is tragic but not abuse.

  • How can it not be?

    If an adult male is taken off the street, strapped down and his penis mutilated while fully conscious and screaming at the top of his voice, we call this grievous bodily harm. If this is done to a completely defenceless and helpless baby boy, we euphemistically call this circumcision and say it has “health benefits”, even though there is no proper scientific evidence for this.

    There are adult persons who enjoy doing this to babies and justifying it on all sorts of weak arguments and shamefully some of them call themselves doctors.

    There are people who enjoy mutilating the genitals of defenceless girls, or would do if it was not prohibited in most western countries.

    When this happens to baby girls, it is called child abuse; how can it not be called this when it happens to boys?

  • It is horrific child abuse.

    A baby is strapped down and about 50% of the skin is sliced from his penis. This permanently alters his body and the vast majority of the time is simply body modification surgery got no valid medical reason. 100% of the time this results in scarring, lost nerve endings, and drying of the skin of the glans from constant exposure to air. It can result in painful erections from overly tight skin, narrowing of the urethral opening, and sometimes far worse complications. In European countries 90-99% of men are intact, and do we see epidemics of STDs and infections? No, we do not. Does any major medical organization recommend routine infant circumcision due to the health benefits? No. If a boy does get an infection in Europe, how is it treated? Usually with antibiotics - not surgery. Circumcision is a brutal form of child abuse, save only in the VERY RARE instances where there is an actual medical need. The U.S. is one of only a few modern industrialized countries where it is done to a large percentage of boys. Just because something became popular doesn't make it right! It is time to end the cycle of abuse. Thankfully the U.S. rate has dropped from about 90% to about 55%. From the Hippocratic Oath, "First, do no harm." If you think cutting away healthy specialized tissue from the genitals of a helpless baby who cannot consent is not harm, then you need to look at the definition of "harm".

    Posted by: PVA
  • If FGM in ANY capacity is considered mutilation is considered mutilation (as it should be), the same should be true for cirumcision

    It is unethical to amputate sensory nerve endings from anyone; many professional medical associations across the globe also seem to agree. But don't take my word for it. - The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (2009) have written that the foreskin "is rich in specialized sensory nerve endings and erogenous tissue. Circumcision is painful, and puts the patient at risk for complications ranging from minor, as in mild local infections, to more serious such as injury to the penis, meatal stenosis, urinary retention, urinary tract infection and, rarely, even hemorrhage leading to death." - The Royal Dutch Medical Association (2010) argues that the human foreskin is "a complex, erotogenic structure that plays an important role in the mechanical function of the penis during sexual acts, such as penetrative intercourse and masturbation", and doesn't stop there. The organization also states "circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity." - Another statement by the Royal Dutch Medical Association (2010): "That the relationship between circumcision and transmission of HIV is at the very least unclear is illustrated by the fact that the US combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with a high percentage of routine circumcisions. The Dutch situation is precisely the reverse: a low prevalence of HIV/AIDS combined with a relatively low number of circumcisions. As such, behavioral factors appear to play a far more important role than whether or not one has a foreskin. (...) Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity." - A study published by the Oxford International Journal of Epidemiology (2011) concluded that "circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia [pain during intercourse] and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfillment." - A paper in The Austrian Journal of Health Psychology (2002) argues "the complex innervation of the foreskin and frenulum has been well documented, and the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings." - A study published by the Indian Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (2010) states "there is no medical justification for routine circumcision in neonates or children. It should be performed only for established medical reasons and should not be universally recommended." - The British Journal of Urology International (2007) reads: “the glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.” - Another study published by the British Journal of Urology International (2007) concluded "there was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings." - The Finnish Medical Association (2004, translation courtesy of Wikipedia) 'opposes circumcision of infants for non-medical reasons, arguing that circumcision does not bring about any medical benefits and it may risk the health of the infant as well as his right to physical integrity, because he is not able to make the decision himself. The association emphasizes that according to the Finnish constitution, the parents' freedom of religion and conscience does not produce the right to violate other people's (children's) right to physical integrity.' - A study in The Journal of Public Health in Africa (2011) states "there is no scientific reason to believe that the [African Randomize Controlled Trial] results would necessarily apply to the general population. It is quite likely that applying research results from a high risk population to the general population will lead to failure." - An analysis of the African Randomized Controlled Trials in the Journal of Law and Medicine (2011): "the trials were compromised by inadequate equipoise; selection bias; inadequate blinding; problematic randomization; trials stopped early with exaggerated treatment effects; and not investigating non-sexual transmission. Several questions remain unanswered. Why were the trials carried out in countries where more intact men were HIV-positive than in those where more circumcised men were HIV-positive? Why were men sampled from specific ethnic subgroups? Why were so many participants lost to follow-up? Why did men in the male circumcision groups receive additional counseling on safe sex practices? (...) any long-term benefit in reducing HIV transmission remains uncertain." - The American Journal of Preventative Medicine (2010) published a study titled "Male circumcision and HIV prevention insufficient evidence and neglected external validity". - The authors of one of the African Randomized Controlled Trials, PMID 16231970 (2005), have stated "This study has some limitations. It was conducted in one area in sub-Saharan Africa and, therefore, may not be generalizable to other places." - A study published by the Naval Health Research Center (2004), which conducted multiple separate logistic regressions to evaluate the role of circumcision in the acquisition of HIV and STI determined circumcision "is not associated with HIV or STI prevention in this U. S. military population (...) Although known HIV risk factors such as inconsistent condom use, history of STI, multiple partners, and anal sex were found to be associated with HIV in this military population, there was no significant association with male circumcision." - The French National Council on AIDS (2007) has stated “The same measures are not applicable to the Northern countries. The recommendations of the WHO state that this strategy is aimed at countries with high prevalence and not at countries with low prevalence or in countries where it relates specifically to one part of the population such as in France or the United States.” - A paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics (2010) found "the [analysis of African Randomized Controlled Trials] noted that further research was required to assess the feasibility, desirability and cost-effectiveness of implementation within local contexts. This paper endorses the need for such research and suggests that, in its absence, it is premature to promote circumcision as a reliable strategy for combating HIV. - A study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine (2012) among Caribbean men reflects that "compared with uncircumcised men, [circumcised men] have accumulated larger numbers of STI in their lifetime, have higher rates of previous diagnosis of warts, and were more likely to have HIV infection (...) Findings suggest the need to apply caution in the use of circumcision as an HIV prevention strategy, particularly in settings where more effective combinations of interventions have yet to be fully implemented."

  • If strapping a child down and taking a knife to their genitals isn't abuse...

    Then what is?
    If i did this to a girl, it would be unequivocally regarded as child abuse. The fact that it is a penis and a boy makes no difference. You are cutting away at the most sensitive part of the body with a knife -- often times unanesthetized. This is probably one of the more extreme forms of abuse that can ever exist as it is an amputation of body tissue. This isn't your typical spanking.

  • How is it not!

    you are forcing an infant that has no way of consenting to a cosmetic sugery to be strapped down and have a piece of useful skin tore and cut from his most sensitive body part! There is no evidence that supports it even though people try to daily, it only started in the USA as a way to prevent young males from self pleasing themselves. It was never intended to be used in a medical way.

  • Of course it is...

    Only 1 in 10,000 adult men opt for circumcision, so we know it has very little benefit. We also know that forcibly restraining a man or woman and cutting off part of their genitals is assault. Children have rights, too. We protect girls from genital harm, so we are left with the unfortunate, uncomfortable situation where a helpless portion of society is being preyed upon because they happen to be young and male.

  • NO, thats stupid!

    Its easier to do and have it done when they are a baby because if they don't get circumcised they can get a really bad infection in their stuff and they will be hospitalized! I think its better to be circumcised when your a baby because if you had a little baby boy would you want him having a infection in his stuff so when he went to pee, it would burn and you would have him hospitalized for most of his life?!??!

  • No its not

    No it's not. It's good for the child's health and it will save him from various infections in the future. And he might as well thank his parents for it later and will surely do the same for his kids. And since he is just a baby it will help him.

  • It's not abuse!

    Circumcision is not only a religious and cultural tradition but it also has mental and physical benefits. In a culture where the majority of boys are circumcised, an uncircumcised boy may be outcast or made fun of. Circumcision on a baby is much less painful and heals more quickly than on an older boy or a man.

  • It's not abuse!

    Circumcision is not only a religious and cultural tradition but it also has mental and physical benefits. In a culture where the majority of boys are circumcised, an uncircumcised boy may be outcast or made fun of. Circumcision on a baby is much less painful and heals more quickly than on an older boy or a man.

  • It's painless and not murder. Murder is considered acceptable through abortion though.

    The foreskin is a non-essential part of the body, and the baby feels little pain. There are certain medical conditions where it is beneficial to give a circumcision to a child. It is culturally important, and if you want to stop circumcision, you need to question other things such as abortion, where you are actually liking a child!

  • No, its really good for health

    some traditional rituals planned to bring us good health, this is one kind of ritual followed by some religious in the world. when boy reach adult life one kind dirty substances will settle down on below glans penis area, this might be cause some infections like itchy, allergic. During penetration of vagina this dirty thing may transferred from man to women, it cause vaginal cancer sometimes. if you look at in scientific way its really acceptable even medical professionals encouraging this procedure for normal persons those who are not getting real pleasure during sex

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Anonymous says2013-06-26T02:08:05.543
To cut off a body part from another human being without their consent (and let's face it, a baby cannot give consent) is a barbaric act of violence. It can never be undone. The child will never know the pleasure of natural masturbation or the feeling of a naturally sensitive glans. Circumcision should be viewed as a crime. No "religious" pass should be given. It should be outlawed.