u/gof__kurself

to control the rising population

ALSO DONE FOR COUNTLESS OTHER REASONS

but population control is a main one!

In the near future as we move away from circumcision, they will start to force sterilization operations on children about to hit puberty unless they come from elite and wealthy families. I'd say or be able to prove you have a high IQ, but our rulers don't want people with high IQ's. Those types of people have the capacity to change the system.

I'm convinced that there were a whole lot of parents who knew exactly what they were signing their sons up for when they had them ritualized mutilated.

They were trading your opportunity to have a happy and fulfilling life over their own personal feelings of what the repercussions may have been for them by the "system"(overlords) for not doing what was expected of them.

THEIR FEARS APPEASED OVER YOUR PERSONAL HAPPINESS

Because a "low and tight" method trims all of the inner lining and stretches the outer skin directly to the edge of the head, it results in a taut appearance with no inner foreskin remaining.

I def. have a low and tight cut. never had any loose skin whatsoever my entire life until just recently.(now 55) The scar line is very large and touches right against my glans. Pretty sure I have a frenulum remnant but it appears to have been sliced right through.

this bit of loose skin just sort of appeared one day. from masturbating without lube on many occasions over the course of my life I suppose.

this low and tight means I have no inner foreskin remaining whatsoever?

what then would foreskin restoration be able to accomplish for me?

Because a "low and tight" method trims all of the inner lining and stretches the outer skin directly to the edge of the head, it results in a taut appearance with no inner foreskin remaining.

Circumcision Variations

tps://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/redmond/

"the operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anaesthetic [to] have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases." (Plain Facts for Old and Young". Book by John Harvey Kellogg, 1877)

-John Harvey Kellogg (MD) degree from Bellevue Hospital Medical College in New York City in 1875

Pain in babies

Doctors used to believe babies could not feel pain. They thought infant brains were too immature. Because of this, doctors performed major surgeries on babies without pain medicine. Modern science completely proves this notion wrong.

Babies have fully developed nerves and brain networks for pain from birth. In fact, experts agree babies feel pain just like adults do—and sometimes even more intensely.

Historian Frederick Hodges presented this lecture @ the University of Lausanne, Switzerland August 1996

According to the belief systems of those cultures that practice the sexual mutilation of children, the sexual organs do not belong to the person to whom they are attached

Instead, they are regarded as community property, under the immediate control of physicians, witch doctors, religious figures, tribal elders, relatives, or their agents. Sexual mutilations are generally perpetrated against defenseless babies and children by operators who themselves were mutilated. While young adults in these cultures are potentially capable of defending themselves against sexual mutilation, powerful cultural taboos and, often, real threats of social, economic, and political discrimination, banishment, or death, prevent escape.

The number of children who die as a direct result of traditional sexual mutilations is high. The number of children who almost die is higher. In one study of the penile mutilation practice (foreskin amputation in this instance) of the Xhosa tribe of Southern Africa, 9% of the mutilated boys died; 52% lost all or most of their penile shaft skin; 14% developed severe infectious lesions; 10% lost their glans penis; and 5% lost their entire penis.1 This represents only those boys who made it to the hospital. The true complication rate is likely to be much higher. In the United States, it is estimated that 229 babies die each year as a result of the complications of the sexual mutilation of routine foreskin amputation.2 Additionally, 1 in 500 suffer serious complications requiring emergency medical attention.3 Regardless of the number that die or are forced to spend the rest of their lives as genital cripples, the death or injury of even one child during the course of sexual mutilation is unjustifiable. Even when there are no officially recognized complications, the survivors are left with semifunctional, scarred, and desensitized sex organs. Sexual mutilations to any degree, to any gender, wherever they occur, and for whatever reason are always prejudicial to the health of the individual.

Traditional sexual mutilations occur primarily in two parts of the world: Saharasia, the great swath of desert extending across Saharan Africa to the deserts of Saudi Arabia; and Melanesia, the scattered islands in the South Pacific extending from Australia to New Guinea. Dr. James DeMeo speculates that sexual mutilations of all kinds arose in Saharasia at approximately 4000 BCE as a result of drastic climatic changes. These changes resulted in an ecologically devastating, irreversible process of desertification and resulted in mass migrations. Previously peaceful cultures were transformed into cultures with strong tendencies toward male dominance, despotism, sexual and economic repression of women and children, sadistic violence, and warfare. In modern times, civil and religious warfare and conquests have spread sexual mutilations from these areas and imposed them on neighboring cultures. Migrating peoples from expansionist mutilating cultures have imposed ritual penile mutilations on the peoples of newly conquered territories. This can be seen in the southerly and easterly political and military expansion of Islamic regimes into sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. Historian Frederick Hodges documents the almost spontaneous genesis of sexual mutilation in historic times in the United States at the hands of physicians, providing insightful clues about the earlier origins of sexual mutilation in prehistory.

As documented in the papers of Berhane Ras-Work, Jeannine Parvati Baker, and Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, the perpetrators of sexual mutilations today generally believe that they are acting in the best interest of the victim. Parents who hand over their children to sexual mutilators generally do so because they believe that mutilation will improve the lives of their children. Powerful mythologies support these practices. Powerful taboos prevent dissent. Some cultures use sexual mutilations as a tribal mark. Some cultures use sexual mutilations as an involuntary initiation into a larger community of similarly mutilated individuals. Others use sexual mutilations as sympathetic magic or for alleged medical purposes imagined to protect the child. Some cultures do not know why they mutilate their children's sexual organs and do so only from force of habit. Some cultures mutilate their children's sexual organs for purely superstitious reasons: to appease angry deities or to ward off evil spirits. The majority of sexually mutilating cultures, however, use sexual mutilations either as a deliberately frightening test of pain endurance intended to strengthen the character of the victim or as a deliberate destruction of erogenous function.

Older victims of sexual mutilation are likely to be mutilated as part of an initiation ceremony for which they are only partially prepared. They are generally unaware that their sexual organs will be cut until the actual cutting begins. In those few cultures that do prepare the initiates, the operator generally gives the victims little accurate information about what will happen, or he deliberately gives them inaccurate information. In such ceremonies, the infliction of terror plays an important supplementary role. Over time, many of the victims can become reconciled to what has happened to their sexual organs and are often accepting of the fact that, when the time comes, they will, without protest, hand over their own children to the mutilators.

What the young victims of penile mutilation themselves understand about what is happening to them is not documented. The younger the victim, the less likely he or she will be able to understand the stated reasons for the mutilation. Clearly, when infants are sexually mutilated, they have no way of comprehending the motives of their mutilators. For the younger victim, the experience is one of terror and of betrayal at the hands of his or her supposed protectors. Whatever the age of the victim, sexual mutilation results in the destruction of self-confidence, the infliction of excruciating pain, and the creation of massive tissue damage.

The functional consequences of sexual mutilation are well documented in this volume by such contributors as Tim Hammond and Dr. Gérard Zwang. Studies have found that flooding the neonatal brain with massive trauma creates detrimental physiological changes in brain structure. Boys who have been subjected to circumcision have a lower threshold for pain than intact boys or girls.4 One study, published in the British Journal of Medical Psychology, found that circumcision of children causes a remarkable decrease in IQ and has a detrimental effect on the child's functioning and adaptation, particularly on his ego strength, resulting in behavioral and personality disorders.5 As Miriam Pollack asks in this volume, what does it mean when society holds a knife to the genitals of its children and inflicts such psychological and physical harm?

   Moral and Physical Reasons for its Performance

Author: Peter Charles Remondino

Release Date: October 21, 2007

Van Lewis

By J. Steven Svoboda, Gregory J. Boyle, and Christopher P. Price

Introduction

While rare in Scandinavia and Europe, male circumcision is still common in North

America despite some reductions in frequency over recent decades. The United States rate

has declined from 90 to 60 per cent in recent years and has fallen by 15 percent in five

years.1 Canadian circumcision rates differ dramatically from province to province but the

national average is around 25%. It is revealing that the provincial rates have plummeted as

each province discontinued coverage under the National Health Service.2 Currently, only

Manitoba still pays for circumcisions.

Circumcision does not constitute genuine medical treatment. It violates criminal law, the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and also human rights. The health implications

are graver than is generally realised, despite clear medical evidence of adverse effects from

the pain, significant complications, psychological harm and inevitable prejudice to genital

function. There are no clearly demonstrable medical benefits. The law, the medical

profession, and society in general seems to have turned two blind eyes to this serious form

of violence against males.

Is infant circumcision advantageous?

A variety of claims as to lack of pain, minimal risk, absence of harm, and so-called

benefits from routine circumcision are frequently made. However, the burden of proof of

substantiating these claims lies on those who would pick up a knife to amputate normal,

healthy and functional anatomy. The claims made by circumcision advocates are

controverted by the facts.

Rationalisations for male genital cutting include claims about hygiene, prevention of

genital cancers, urinary tract infections (UTI’s), and of AIDS. However, overwhelming

evidence exists to the contrary. The American Cancer Society’s official website flatly

states:

“The consensus among studies... is that circumcision is not of value in preventing cancer

of the penis. It is important that the issue of circumcision not distract the public’s

attention from avoiding known penile cancer risk factors—having unprotected sexual

relations with multiple partners (increasing the likelihood of human papilloma virus

Care Investment Analysts for the decline between 1993 and 1998 in circumcisions from 1.3 million to 1.1 million despite the number of

male births remaining relatively constant).

(documenting that circumcision rate plunged from 40% to 0.4% immediately following the deinsurance of routine circumcision in the

province on August 1, 1996); Correspondence Dated November 15, 1999 from Jamie Muir, Minister of Health, Nova Scotia, to John

Antonopoulos (documenting that provincial circumcision rate dropped from 11.1% to 2.5%, after coverage by the provincial Medical

Services Insurance plan was discontinued). Even more dramatically, British Columbia’s rate reportedly dropped from around 50% to

near zero, essentially overnight, following the cessation of coverage.

infection) and cigarette smoking.”3

Furthermore, contrary to the claims of circumcision advocates, circumcision does not

protect against sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS.4 Those studies which claim to

prove the contrary are fatally marred by a failure to properly account for possible

confounding factors, such as behavioural and demographic differences between

circumcising and non-circumcising tribes in Africa. Moreover, the suspect nature of a

possible positive association between HIV and circumcision should be clear from the fact

that the United States has both the highest rate of routine circumcision and AIDS in the

developed world.5 Moreover, UTI’s occur in only 1 to 2 per cent of boys, and are

conservatively treated with antibiotics. Circumcised men without the protection of a

foreskin are at greater risk of many sexually transmitted diseases.6 As medical ethicist

Margaret Somerville pointed out:

“Moreover, neonatal circumcision is done without consent of the subject, removes

healthy tissue with unique anatomical structure and function, and leads to

differences in adult sexual behaviour… We need, therefore, to address the issue

directly and end the persistent efforts to find a medical rationale for

circumcision by removing the cloak of medicine from this procedure.”7

Consequently, no national or international medical association in the modern

industrialised world (including the Canadian Paediatric Society [CPS], the American

Academy of Pediatrics [AAP], the Australian Medical Association, the Australian College

of Paediatrics, the Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, or the British Medical

Association) endorses routine infant circumcision.8 In 1996, the CPS stated, “Circumcision

of newborns should not be routinely performed.”9 The College of Physicians & Surgeons

of Manitoba has also recommended against newborn circumcision, noting that "[s]pecific

medical indications for the performance of circumcision in the neonate are rare.”10

In March 1999 the AAP concluded that “the data are not sufficient to recommend routine

neonatal circumcision.”11

It is notable that for one-and-a-half centuries, circumcision has been a procedure in

search of a rationale.

in the 1850’s assured Americans that amputating half the skin from a boy’s penis would

cure masturbation, which in turn supposedly caused paralysis, hip trouble, sloth, idiocy,

moral laxity, spinal curvature, lameness, clumsiness, hysteria, malnutrition, and epilepsy.

At the turn of the last century the procedure was still the cure of choice for not only

masturbation but also premature ejaculation, hernia, nervous exhaustion, and diarrhea! As

recently as the 1950’s prestigious American medical journals were publishing articles

recommending not only circumcision but also female genital cutting as cures for a wide

range of maladies.

Disadvantages of circumcision

During circumcision, the baby’s sensitive foreskin is crushed audibly, and the raw flesh

is cut with scissors. In all neonatal circumcisions, forceps or other probes are inserted into

the delicate foreskin, scraping, tearing apart and destroying the normal erogenous tissues of

the child’s sex organ. This causes considerable pain (in addition to being truly horrific to

witness) and leaves the raw glans open to infections, with any resultant scar tissue on the

glans further compromising sexual sensitivity. Circumcision removes 50 per cent of penile

skin and thousands of specialised nerve endings, fundamental to normal sexual response.12

The externalised glans and inner foreskin remnant become dried and skin-hardened

(keratinised), further desensitising the penis, with progressive lifelong loss of sensation.13

Reduced sexual function and pleasure has been acknowledged for centuries. Indeed,

Maimonides wrote in the 12th century:

“The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired … there is no

doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement.”14

Circumcision makes the achievement of orgasm more difficult, decreases its intensity,

and impedes sexual satisfaction among circumcised men and their female partners, thereby

reducing or constraining both male and female sexuality.15 Complications, including an

estimated 229 deaths each year in the United States alone,16 range up to 55 per cent

depending on the definition applied, and willingness to report complications fully and

accurately (for example, meatal stenosis, urethral fistula, penile necrosis, accidental

amputation of part or all of the glans, skin tags).17 Since genital integrity is always

destroyed, and sexual function is always compromised, the true complication rate of

circumcision is in reality 100 per cent.

In Texas, a five-year-old boy died following circumcision complications.18 In Miami a

boy bled to death after circumcision.19 Yet another circumcision-related death recently

occurred in Cleveland.20 Sometimes, the entire penis is lost, and several boys have

undergone gender reassignment (often unacceptable to the victim) resulting from this

tragedy.21 In Seattle, to save his life, one baby’s penis was denuded, his scrotum

completely removed, and his skin from his thighs up to his navel had to be excised to stop

gangrene spreading from his circumcision wound.22

Circumcision causes behavioural and neurological changes, diminished self-esteem and

body image, sexual deficits, and often lifelong circumcision-related stress.23 Many men

see themselves as deformed or harmed by male genital mutilation, causing enduring

psychological damage.24 Many circumcised men suffer ongoing symptoms of post-

traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).25 Recent research has found substantial evidence for

severe, ongoing PTSD symptoms in adulthood as a direct result of infant circumcision.26

A 1997 infant circumcision pain study was abandoned because inflicting pain on

unanaesthetised controls was deemed unethical.27 During the circumcision, a baby’s blood

oxygen level drops.28 His heart rate, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and stress measures

such as cortisol level shoot up.29 His cry takes on a surprisingly high-pitched character

observed only when a baby experiences excruciating pain.30

Pain may be blunted but not eliminated by local anaesthesia.31 Pain causes irreversible

changes in the developing brain, heightening pain perception.32 Atrophy of non-stimulated

neurons in the brain’s pleasure centre follows severed erogenous sensory nerve endings.33

Circumcised boys react with greater pain intensity to immunisations six months after

circumcision.34 In a relatively rare joint statement this past February, the AAP and the

CPS issued a joint policy statement acknowledging the very grave effects of neonatal pain:

“[E]xposure to prolonged or severe pain may increase neonatal morbidity; infants who

experienced pain during the neonatal period (up to 1 month of age) respond differently to

subsequent painful events…”35

Circumcision violates domestic law

Infant circumcision in the absence of specific medical justification violates Article 7 of

the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which assures everyone “the right to life,

liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in

accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”36

The general rule in Canada is that criminal assault occurs whenever a person, without

the consent of another person, applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or

indirectly.37 The law is similar for civil actions. As one landmark Canadian case held,

“any intentional nonconsensual touching which is harmful or offensive to a person’s

reasonable sense of dignity is actionable.”38 Consent of the victim serves as a defence to

assaults that do not inflict actual bodily harm but typically will not prevent liability where

bodily harm occurs. Exceptions to the general prohibition on assaults causing bodily harm

include medical treatment. Dr. Margaret Somerville, one of Canada's leading ethicists and

Founding Director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, has eloquently

expressed the legally suspect basis of this procedure:

“All woundings are criminal assault unless they can be justified... A therapeutic aim is

the justification for almost all medical wounding and is an essential justification for those

unable to consent to the wounding for themselves. Consequently, a physician would need

to show that infant male circumcision was medically necessary before it would be

justified.”39

Every doctor has two legal duties: first, to act with reasonable care; and secondly, to

obtain informed consent from the patient, except in a life-threatening medical emergency.

Failure to obtain informed consent renders any bodily intrusion an assault. The Supreme

Court of Canada has stressed the legal requirement that physicians fully inform patients of

the risks entailed by a proposed treatment.40

When circumcisions have resulted in litigation, the cases have been fought on the

grounds of negligence or lack of informed consent. A British Columbia court ordered a

urologist to pay $40,000 damages to a patient compelled to undergo plastic surgery as an

adult because of a circumcision he underwent at the age of twelve.41 Last year, a

settlement was reached in a $10 million lawsuit over a botched circumcision which severed

the tip of a Cleveland boy’s penis.42

Also, actions have been based on lack of informed consent. In Alabama, a newborn was

circumcised against his mother’s wishes, resulting in a verdict of US$65,000, and a similar

case in New York is currently the subject of litigation.43

Parents should require the doctor to explain to them all inherent risks and possible

complications, such as severe pain, meatal stenosis, penile necrosis, lifelong sexual

dysfunction, brain damage, and even death. Once the foreskin with its thousands of

erogenous nerve endings and exquisitely sensitive frenulum has been severed, it can never

be replaced. The infant victim has no say in the matter, and is forced to live with the

adverse physical, reduced sexual, and psychological/post-traumatic stress disorder

consequences for the remainder of his life.

The requirements of informed consent mandate that full information be provided and

that no pressure be placed on parents to assent to a circumcision. Nevertheless, medical

doctors rarely provide complete information of all complications which may follow

circumcision, and some explicitly advocate non-therapeutic circumcision.

Parents cannot consent to non-therapeutic medical procedures

Given international instruments and domestic common law principles and case law,

grave doubt exists as to whether even a truly informed parent can consent to the non-

therapeutic circumcision of a child.44

Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Art 12, any child capable of forming

his or her own views has the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting him

or her, and for those views to be given due weight in accordance with age and maturity.

Newborn babies cannot express a view on whether they should be circumcised.

Circumcising children removes their choice for all time.

Unless a medical procedure is necessary to preserve life or health, it should be

postponed until the child is sufficiently mature to make a decision for himself or herself.

Wherever proposed treatment is not unequivocally beneficial to the child, parental assent is

insufficient.

The Bioethics Committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics emphasised that the

power to consent to a procedure rests solely with patients:

“Only patients who have appropriate decisional capacity and legal empowerment can

give their informed consent to medical care. In all other situations, parents or other

surrogates provide informed permission for diagnosis and treatment of children with the

assent of the child whenever appropriate.”

They also concluded:

“Thus, ‘proxy consent’ poses serious problems for pediatric health care providers. Such

providers have legal and ethical duties to their child patients to render competent

medical care based on what the patient needs, not what someone else expresses.”46

Nor do religious considerations permit parents to elect nontherapeutic procedures for

their nonconsenting children. Canadian courts have repeatedly held that even if a parent is

motivated by religious beliefs, he or she is powerless to consent to a procedure which does

not confer a genuine medical benefit upon the child, particularly where it also may cause

actual harm.47

Involuntary circumcision violates human rights law

Canadian courts have stressed that domestic law must be interpreted in accordance with

Canada’s international treaty obligations, which further oblige Canada to execute its

provisions within the country.48

Ratified by every country in the world except the United States and Somalia, the United

Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child safeguards the child’s right to autonomy

and bodily integrity – rights violated by neonatal male circumcision. Article 19 provides

that states shall take all appropriate measures “to protect the child from all forms of

physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment

or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or

any other person who has the care of the child.” Article 24(3) urges “abolishing traditional

practices prejudicial to the health of children.” Article 6(2) safeguards the survival and

development of the child.

The following human rights treaties applicable in Canada also prohibit male genital

mutilation based on such critical rights as the right to bodily integrity, the right to freedom

of religion, the right to the highest attainable standard of health, the right to protection

against torture, and the right to equal protection:

• Charter of the United Nations: Art 55(c);

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Arts 7, 9, 18.3 and 24.1;

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Arts 3, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 25(2);

• Convention on the Rights of the Child:

Arts 14.1, 14.3, 16, 24.1, 24.2, 34 and 37(b).

Official acknowledgment of circumcision as a human rights violation is growing.

Germany awarded political asylum to a Turkish man based on his fear of enforced

circumcision:

“There may be ... no doubt that a circumcision which has taken place against the will of

the person affected shows … a violation of his physical and psychological integrity

reversed on other grounds, 65 D.L.R. (4th) 1.

which is of significance to asylum.”49

Two United Nations reports recognise sexual assault on males, including circumcision,

as torture and a violation of human rights.50

Discriminatory prohibition of female genital mutilation violates human rights

In 1997 the Canadian Parliament amended Section 268 of the Criminal Code of

Canada, dealing with aggravated assault, so as to it specifically outlaw all forms of

female genital mutilation (FGM).51

Section 268 prohibits the surgical cutting for non-medical reasons of female genitalia

but fails to address male genital cutting. Such a distinction based on gender directly

conflict with sections 15 and 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

(Charter). Section 15 (1) bars discrimination based on, among other things, sex.

Section 28 provides, “Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and

freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.” The

federal law in the United States outlawing FGM52 similarly violates equal protection

principles enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the American

Constitution. When it comes to issues of health and bodily integrity, sometimes males

do end up with the short end of the stick.

Countries which proscribe even the mildest forms of female circumcision – which may

involve only a nick to the clitoris and/or excision of the female prepuce (Type 1) – but

permit infant male circumcision – involving surgical amputation of the entire foreskin – are

failing to provide equal protection of the right to bodily integrity for male minors. Laws

against female genital mutilation, which do not simultaneously prohibit male genital

mutilation, contravene principles of equal protection enshrined in human rights law. They

directly conflict with Art 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:

“All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal

protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in

violation of the Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.”

Likewise, these nations contravene Art 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Art 2 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Arts 1(3), and 55(c) of the United

Nations Charter. All United Nations members are bound by these and all Charter

provisions.

One frequent rationalisation for legislation addressing only female genital mutilation is

the supposedly dramatic contrast in severity between female genital mutilation and male

genital mutilation. However, circumcision removes a considerable area of erogenous penile

skin (an area corresponding to 64 to 90 sq cm in adult males),53 causing significant

damage. Human rights principles are absolute, not subject to balancing in the scales of

international justice relative to other violations. Interpretations of human rights law which

recognise female genital mutilation but not male genital mutilation as violations infringe on

equal protection principles enshrined in international law.

Growing resistance

For nearly two decades, the United States-based National Organization of Circumcision

Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC)54, which has a number of Canadian branches,

has been on the forefront of organised resistance to circumcision (as well as all forms of

female genital mutilation). Organised Canadian opposition to circumcision has been

increasing dramatically in recent years, with the founding of the Circumcision Information

and Resource Centre (CIRC)55 and INTACT.56 In the United States, profession-specific

organisations have been founded which are all lobbying aggressively against involuntary

circumcision, including Doctors Opposing Circumcision, Nurses for the Rights of the

Child, and Attorneys for the Rights of the Child.57

Others of us are using slow skin stretching techniques to "restore" our foreskins.

Actually this process only partially heals one of the three harmful effects of circumcision

discussed above, namely the loss of covering of the glans. Nevertheless, successful

restoring men report significantly improved sensitivity of their glans.

Jim Bigelow's excellent book "The Joy of Uncircumcising" discusses foreskin

restoration

techniques and also documents the problems caused by this barbaric practice, as do other

books such as Ronald Goldman's monumental "Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma ($21.95

postpaid from Vanguard Publications, 888-445-5199).

Conclusion

Reasons for concern about infant male circumcision under human rights principles

include:

• the loss of highly erogenous sexual tissue which also serves important protective

functions;

• the loss of bodily integrity;

• traumatic and often highly painful disfigurement;

• complications including death and the loss of the entire penis;58 and

• the impermissibility of any mutilation of children’s genitals performed with neither their

consent nor medical justification.

No basis in international human rights law or domestic law justifies the discriminatory

prohibition of only female genital mutilation.

Non-therapeutic, invasive and irreversible major surgery, especially sexual reduction

surgery on unconsenting minors, is unethical. The standard of care for infrequent events

such as infections is antibiotics, not amputation. Circumcision of healthy male minors is

useless and traumatic, causing severe and lasting harm physically, sexually and often

psychologically.

Enforced non-therapeutic genital cutting of unconsenting minors is overdue for

recognition by the legal community as sexual mutilation.59 As we enter the 21st century,

appropriate legal action must be taken to safeguard the physical genital integrity of male

children. We must put a stop to this serious impairment of our health and bodily integrity.

By J. Steven Svoboda, Gregory J. Boyle, and Christopher P. Price

Introduction

While rare in Scandinavia and Europe, male circumcision is still common in North

America despite some reductions in frequency over recent decades. The United States rate

has declined from 90 to 60 per cent in recent years and has fallen by 15 percent in five

years.1 Canadian circumcision rates differ dramatically from province to province but the

national average is around 25%. It is revealing that the provincial rates have plummeted as

each province discontinued coverage under the National Health Service.2 Currently, only

Manitoba still pays for circumcisions.

Circumcision does not constitute genuine medical treatment. It violates criminal law, the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and also human rights. The health implications

are graver than is generally realised, despite clear medical evidence of adverse effects from

the pain, significant complications, psychological harm and inevitable prejudice to genital

function. There are no clearly demonstrable medical benefits. The law, the medical

profession, and society in general seems to have turned two blind eyes to this serious form

of violence against males.

Is infant circumcision advantageous?

A variety of claims as to lack of pain, minimal risk, absence of harm, and so-called

benefits from routine circumcision are frequently made. However, the burden of proof of

substantiating these claims lies on those who would pick up a knife to amputate normal,

healthy and functional anatomy. The claims made by circumcision advocates are

controverted by the facts.

Rationalisations for male genital cutting include claims about hygiene, prevention of

genital cancers, urinary tract infections (UTI’s), and of AIDS. However, overwhelming

evidence exists to the contrary. The American Cancer Society’s official website flatly

states:

“The consensus among studies... is that circumcision is not of value in preventing cancer

of the penis. It is important that the issue of circumcision not distract the public’s

attention from avoiding known penile cancer risk factors—having unprotected sexual

relations with multiple partners (increasing the likelihood of human papilloma virus

Care Investment Analysts for the decline between 1993 and 1998 in circumcisions from 1.3 million to 1.1 million despite the number of

male births remaining relatively constant).

(documenting that circumcision rate plunged from 40% to 0.4% immediately following the deinsurance of routine circumcision in the

province on August 1, 1996); Correspondence Dated November 15, 1999 from Jamie Muir, Minister of Health, Nova Scotia, to John

Antonopoulos (documenting that provincial circumcision rate dropped from 11.1% to 2.5%, after coverage by the provincial Medical

Services Insurance plan was discontinued). Even more dramatically, British Columbia’s rate reportedly dropped from around 50% to

near zero, essentially overnight, following the cessation of coverage.

infection) and cigarette smoking.”3

Furthermore, contrary to the claims of circumcision advocates, circumcision does not

protect against sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS.4 Those studies which claim to

prove the contrary are fatally marred by a failure to properly account for possible

confounding factors, such as behavioural and demographic differences between

circumcising and non-circumcising tribes in Africa. Moreover, the suspect nature of a

possible positive association between HIV and circumcision should be clear from the fact

that the United States has both the highest rate of routine circumcision and AIDS in the

developed world.5 Moreover, UTI’s occur in only 1 to 2 per cent of boys, and are

conservatively treated with antibiotics. Circumcised men without the protection of a

foreskin are at greater risk of many sexually transmitted diseases.6 As medical ethicist

Margaret Somerville pointed out:

“Moreover, neonatal circumcision is done without consent of the subject, removes

healthy tissue with unique anatomical structure and function, and leads to

differences in adult sexual behaviour… We need, therefore, to address the issue

directly and end the persistent efforts to find a medical rationale for

circumcision by removing the cloak of medicine from this procedure.”7

Consequently, no national or international medical association in the modern

industrialised world (including the Canadian Paediatric Society [CPS], the American

Academy of Pediatrics [AAP], the Australian Medical Association, the Australian College

of Paediatrics, the Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, or the British Medical

Association) endorses routine infant circumcision.8 In 1996, the CPS stated, “Circumcision

of newborns should not be routinely performed.”9 The College of Physicians & Surgeons

of Manitoba has also recommended against newborn circumcision, noting that "[s]pecific

medical indications for the performance of circumcision in the neonate are rare.”10

In March 1999 the AAP concluded that “the data are not sufficient to recommend routine

neonatal circumcision.”11

It is notable that for one-and-a-half centuries, circumcision has been a procedure in

search of a rationale.

in the 1850’s assured Americans that amputating half the skin from a boy’s penis would

cure masturbation, which in turn supposedly caused paralysis, hip trouble, sloth, idiocy,

moral laxity, spinal curvature, lameness, clumsiness, hysteria, malnutrition, and epilepsy.

At the turn of the last century the procedure was still the cure of choice for not only

masturbation but also premature ejaculation, hernia, nervous exhaustion, and diarrhea! As

recently as the 1950’s prestigious American medical journals were publishing articles

recommending not only circumcision but also female genital cutting as cures for a wide

range of maladies.

Disadvantages of circumcision

During circumcision, the baby’s sensitive foreskin is crushed audibly, and the raw flesh

is cut with scissors. In all neonatal circumcisions, forceps or other probes are inserted into

the delicate foreskin, scraping, tearing apart and destroying the normal erogenous tissues of

the child’s sex organ. This causes considerable pain (in addition to being truly horrific to

witness) and leaves the raw glans open to infections, with any resultant scar tissue on the

glans further compromising sexual sensitivity. Circumcision removes 50 per cent of penile

skin and thousands of specialised nerve endings, fundamental to normal sexual response.12

The externalised glans and inner foreskin remnant become dried and skin-hardened

(keratinised), further desensitising the penis, with progressive lifelong loss of sensation.13

Reduced sexual function and pleasure has been acknowledged for centuries. Indeed,

Maimonides wrote in the 12th century:

“The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired … there is no

doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement.”14

Circumcision makes the achievement of orgasm more difficult, decreases its intensity,

and impedes sexual satisfaction among circumcised men and their female partners, thereby

reducing or constraining both male and female sexuality.15 Complications, including an

estimated 229 deaths each year in the United States alone,16 range up to 55 per cent

depending on the definition applied, and willingness to report complications fully and

accurately (for example, meatal stenosis, urethral fistula, penile necrosis, accidental

amputation of part or all of the glans, skin tags).17 Since genital integrity is always

destroyed, and sexual function is always compromised, the true complication rate of

circumcision is in reality 100 per cent.

In Texas, a five-year-old boy died following circumcision complications.18 In Miami a

boy bled to death after circumcision.19 Yet another circumcision-related death recently

occurred in Cleveland.20 Sometimes, the entire penis is lost, and several boys have

undergone gender reassignment (often unacceptable to the victim) resulting from this

tragedy.21 In Seattle, to save his life, one baby’s penis was denuded, his scrotum

completely removed, and his skin from his thighs up to his navel had to be excised to stop

gangrene spreading from his circumcision wound.22

Circumcision causes behavioural and neurological changes, diminished self-esteem and

body image, sexual deficits, and often lifelong circumcision-related stress.23 Many men

see themselves as deformed or harmed by male genital mutilation, causing enduring

psychological damage.24 Many circumcised men suffer ongoing symptoms of post-

traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).25 Recent research has found substantial evidence for

severe, ongoing PTSD symptoms in adulthood as a direct result of infant circumcision.26

A 1997 infant circumcision pain study was abandoned because inflicting pain on

unanaesthetised controls was deemed unethical.27 During the circumcision, a baby’s blood

oxygen level drops.28 His heart rate, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and stress measures

such as cortisol level shoot up.29 His cry takes on a surprisingly high-pitched character

observed only when a baby experiences excruciating pain.30

Pain may be blunted but not eliminated by local anaesthesia.31 Pain causes irreversible

changes in the developing brain, heightening pain perception.32 Atrophy of non-stimulated

neurons in the brain’s pleasure centre follows severed erogenous sensory nerve endings.33

Circumcised boys react with greater pain intensity to immunisations six months after

circumcision.34 In a relatively rare joint statement this past February, the AAP and the

CPS issued a joint policy statement acknowledging the very grave effects of neonatal pain:

“[E]xposure to prolonged or severe pain may increase neonatal morbidity; infants who

experienced pain during the neonatal period (up to 1 month of age) respond differently to

subsequent painful events…”35

Circumcision violates domestic law

Infant circumcision in the absence of specific medical justification violates Article 7 of

the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which assures everyone “the right to life,

liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in

accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”36

The general rule in Canada is that criminal assault occurs whenever a person, without

the consent of another person, applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or

indirectly.37 The law is similar for civil actions. As one landmark Canadian case held,

“any intentional nonconsensual touching which is harmful or offensive to a person’s

reasonable sense of dignity is actionable.”38 Consent of the victim serves as a defence to

assaults that do not inflict actual bodily harm but typically will not prevent liability where

bodily harm occurs. Exceptions to the general prohibition on assaults causing bodily harm

include medical treatment. Dr. Margaret Somerville, one of Canada's leading ethicists and

Founding Director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, has eloquently

expressed the legally suspect basis of this procedure:

“All woundings are criminal assault unless they can be justified... A therapeutic aim is

the justification for almost all medical wounding and is an essential justification for those

unable to consent to the wounding for themselves. Consequently, a physician would need

to show that infant male circumcision was medically necessary before it would be

justified.”39

Every doctor has two legal duties: first, to act with reasonable care; and secondly, to

obtain informed consent from the patient, except in a life-threatening medical emergency.

Failure to obtain informed consent renders any bodily intrusion an assault. The Supreme

Court of Canada has stressed the legal requirement that physicians fully inform patients of

the risks entailed by a proposed treatment.40

When circumcisions have resulted in litigation, the cases have been fought on the

grounds of negligence or lack of informed consent. A British Columbia court ordered a

urologist to pay $40,000 damages to a patient compelled to undergo plastic surgery as an

adult because of a circumcision he underwent at the age of twelve.41 Last year, a

settlement was reached in a $10 million lawsuit over a botched circumcision which severed

the tip of a Cleveland boy’s penis.42

Also, actions have been based on lack of informed consent. In Alabama, a newborn was

circumcised against his mother’s wishes, resulting in a verdict of US$65,000, and a similar

case in New York is currently the subject of litigation.43

Parents should require the doctor to explain to them all inherent risks and possible

complications, such as severe pain, meatal stenosis, penile necrosis, lifelong sexual

dysfunction, brain damage, and even death. Once the foreskin with its thousands of

erogenous nerve endings and exquisitely sensitive frenulum has been severed, it can never

be replaced. The infant victim has no say in the matter, and is forced to live with the

adverse physical, reduced sexual, and psychological/post-traumatic stress disorder

consequences for the remainder of his life.

The requirements of informed consent mandate that full information be provided and

that no pressure be placed on parents to assent to a circumcision. Nevertheless, medical

doctors rarely provide complete information of all complications which may follow

circumcision, and some explicitly advocate non-therapeutic circumcision.

Parents cannot consent to non-therapeutic medical procedures

Given international instruments and domestic common law principles and case law,

grave doubt exists as to whether even a truly informed parent can consent to the non-

therapeutic circumcision of a child.44

Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Art 12, any child capable of forming

his or her own views has the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting him

or her, and for those views to be given due weight in accordance with age and maturity.

Newborn babies cannot express a view on whether they should be circumcised.

Circumcising children removes their choice for all time.

Unless a medical procedure is necessary to preserve life or health, it should be

postponed until the child is sufficiently mature to make a decision for himself or herself.

Wherever proposed treatment is not unequivocally beneficial to the child, parental assent is

insufficient.

The Bioethics Committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics emphasised that the

power to consent to a procedure rests solely with patients:

“Only patients who have appropriate decisional capacity and legal empowerment can

give their informed consent to medical care. In all other situations, parents or other

surrogates provide informed permission for diagnosis and treatment of children with the

assent of the child whenever appropriate.”

They also concluded:

“Thus, ‘proxy consent’ poses serious problems for pediatric health care providers. Such

providers have legal and ethical duties to their child patients to render competent

medical care based on what the patient needs, not what someone else expresses.”46

Nor do religious considerations permit parents to elect nontherapeutic procedures for

their nonconsenting children. Canadian courts have repeatedly held that even if a parent is

motivated by religious beliefs, he or she is powerless to consent to a procedure which does

not confer a genuine medical benefit upon the child, particularly where it also may cause

actual harm.47

Involuntary circumcision violates human rights law

Canadian courts have stressed that domestic law must be interpreted in accordance with

Canada’s international treaty obligations, which further oblige Canada to execute its

provisions within the country.48

Ratified by every country in the world except the United States and Somalia, the United

Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child safeguards the child’s right to autonomy

and bodily integrity – rights violated by neonatal male circumcision. Article 19 provides

that states shall take all appropriate measures “to protect the child from all forms of

physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment

or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or

any other person who has the care of the child.” Article 24(3) urges “abolishing traditional

practices prejudicial to the health of children.” Article 6(2) safeguards the survival and

development of the child.

The following human rights treaties applicable in Canada also prohibit male genital

mutilation based on such critical rights as the right to bodily integrity, the right to freedom

of religion, the right to the highest attainable standard of health, the right to protection

against torture, and the right to equal protection:

• Charter of the United Nations: Art 55(c);

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Arts 7, 9, 18.3 and 24.1;

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Arts 3, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 25(2);

• Convention on the Rights of the Child:

Arts 14.1, 14.3, 16, 24.1, 24.2, 34 and 37(b).

Official acknowledgment of circumcision as a human rights violation is growing.

Germany awarded political asylum to a Turkish man based on his fear of enforced

circumcision:

“There may be ... no doubt that a circumcision which has taken place against the will of

the person affected shows … a violation of his physical and psychological integrity

reversed on other grounds, 65 D.L.R. (4th) 1.

which is of significance to asylum.”49

Two United Nations reports recognise sexual assault on males, including circumcision,

as torture and a violation of human rights.50

Discriminatory prohibition of female genital mutilation violates human rights

In 1997 the Canadian Parliament amended Section 268 of the Criminal Code of

Canada, dealing with aggravated assault, so as to it specifically outlaw all forms of

female genital mutilation (FGM).51

Section 268 prohibits the surgical cutting for non-medical reasons of female genitalia

but fails to address male genital cutting. Such a distinction based on gender directly

conflict with sections 15 and 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

(Charter). Section 15 (1) bars discrimination based on, among other things, sex.

Section 28 provides, “Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and

freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.” The

federal law in the United States outlawing FGM52 similarly violates equal protection

principles enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the American

Constitution. When it comes to issues of health and bodily integrity, sometimes males

do end up with the short end of the stick.

Countries which proscribe even the mildest forms of female circumcision – which may

involve only a nick to the clitoris and/or excision of the female prepuce (Type 1) – but

permit infant male circumcision – involving surgical amputation of the entire foreskin – are

failing to provide equal protection of the right to bodily integrity for male minors. Laws

against female genital mutilation, which do not simultaneously prohibit male genital

mutilation, contravene principles of equal protection enshrined in human rights law. They

directly conflict with Art 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:

“All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal

protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in

violation of the Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.”

Likewise, these nations contravene Art 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Art 2 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Arts 1(3), and 55(c) of the United

Nations Charter. All United Nations members are bound by these and all Charter

provisions.

One frequent rationalisation for legislation addressing only female genital mutilation is

the supposedly dramatic contrast in severity between female genital mutilation and male

genital mutilation. However, circumcision removes a considerable area of erogenous penile

skin (an area corresponding to 64 to 90 sq cm in adult males),53 causing significant

damage. Human rights principles are absolute, not subject to balancing in the scales of

international justice relative to other violations. Interpretations of human rights law which

recognise female genital mutilation but not male genital mutilation as violations infringe on

equal protection principles enshrined in international law.

Growing resistance

For nearly two decades, the United States-based National Organization of Circumcision

Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC)54, which has a number of Canadian branches,

has been on the forefront of organised resistance to circumcision (as well as all forms of

female genital mutilation). Organised Canadian opposition to circumcision has been

increasing dramatically in recent years, with the founding of the Circumcision Information

and Resource Centre (CIRC)55 and INTACT.56 In the United States, profession-specific

organisations have been founded which are all lobbying aggressively against involuntary

circumcision, including Doctors Opposing Circumcision, Nurses for the Rights of the

Child, and Attorneys for the Rights of the Child.57

Others of us are using slow skin stretching techniques to "restore" our foreskins.

Actually this process only partially heals one of the three harmful effects of circumcision

discussed above, namely the loss of covering of the glans. Nevertheless, successful

restoring men report significantly improved sensitivity of their glans.

Jim Bigelow's excellent book "The Joy of Uncircumcising" discusses foreskin

restoration

techniques and also documents the problems caused by this barbaric practice, as do other

books such as Ronald Goldman's monumental "Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma ($21.95

postpaid from Vanguard Publications, 888-445-5199).

Conclusion

Reasons for concern about infant male circumcision under human rights principles

include:

• the loss of highly erogenous sexual tissue which also serves important protective

functions;

• the loss of bodily integrity;

• traumatic and often highly painful disfigurement;

• complications including death and the loss of the entire penis;58 and

• the impermissibility of any mutilation of children’s genitals performed with neither their

consent nor medical justification.

No basis in international human rights law or domestic law justifies the discriminatory

prohibition of only female genital mutilation.

Non-therapeutic, invasive and irreversible major surgery, especially sexual reduction

surgery on unconsenting minors, is unethical. The standard of care for infrequent events

such as infections is antibiotics, not amputation. Circumcision of healthy male minors is

useless and traumatic, causing severe and lasting harm physically, sexually and often

psychologically.

Enforced non-therapeutic genital cutting of unconsenting minors is overdue for

recognition by the legal community as sexual mutilation.59 As we enter the 21st century,

appropriate legal action must be taken to safeguard the physical genital integrity of male

children. We must put a stop to this serious impairment of our health and bodily integrity.

WHAT I CAN'T DEAL WITH IN LIFE IS THAT PEOPLE CONSPIRED TO ALTER MY Human potential

and the police and medical professionals only serve the rich

It has everything to do with control and oppression.
Wrapped up into a big propaganda bag about it being "cleaner" and more "aesthetically pleasing"

yet everyone wants to blame it on $ greedy doctors. If this sentiment has any truth whatsoever to it, then I say that,

DOCTORS PUSH NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION ONTO PARENTS TO KEEP FROM BEING FIRED BY THE HOSPITALS' ADMINISTRATORS WHO ACCEPT BLOOD MONEY FROM THE LIKES OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION AND OTHER NONPROFIT FOUNDATIONS WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF PROCURING THE RITUAL SACRIFICES!

IT IS Social conditioning - they don't care about taking away your sexual pleasure. ^(They do care about conditioning your brain to think and act a certain way)!

So that you are conditioned to never expect anything out of life. (your penis doesn't work properly so you never expect to have a satisfying orgasm or to satisfy your partner, this conditions your brain to never have any expectations concerning life.

To condition you to be able to adhere to a mundane existence.

To put up with everything(high costs of everything while being paid very little for your labor) and not be tempted to fight back against it.

Conditioned into believing that you don't deserve anything. (justice, low taxes, basic human rights, etc...)

This has got to be the main point we need to express to expecting parents of a son.

The absolute number one talking point has to be that he is not your property to do with as you please!

RIC (Routine Infant Forced circumcision)(or my interpretation Ritual Infant Circumcision) is such a drastic and life changing cosmetic surgery done to a defenseless and unconsenting infant. The torture and trauma of the procedure will stay with them for their entire lifetime. Drastically altering not only their sexual function but their cognitive function even more.

If their argument is then, "well, but my doctor is telling me to have it done." You then persuade them to educate themselves with internet sources concerning the subject!

If you can't trust your government then you can't trust your medical professionals!

At the gym last week this young guy struck up a conversation with me. Right off I could tell he was religious. He starts the conversation with something like. "what a wonderful day""great to be alive, and so and so bullshit. Without hesitation I'm like "yeah, maybe if I didn't have body parts cut off of me as soon as I was born."

So, he says, "oh I guess you mean circumcision huh" then he's like, well at least you weren't aborted.

So that's the mentality that most people have. They feel so blessed and lucky to just be alive, regardless of what the world might have done to them or might do to them in the near future! They don't mind their oppression as long as they get to be alive!