Edgar Schoen Showing His Age

In a reality where circumcision is increasingly falling out of favor, Edgar Schoen appears to be absorbed in an idealistic dreamworld, where citizenship to a country is marked by being male, and whether or not his penis has been mutilated at birth.

In an article he wrote for JWeekly recently, he raves on about circumcision being "the norm" in this country, touts the so-called "medical benefits" of it, and plugs infant circumcision using rather out-dated propaganda. In the end, though, Schoen reveals his true interests in infant circumcision, as he brow-beats Jewish parents who are beginning to abandon the practice.

In this blog post I take apart his most recent circumcision plug piece.

Schoen describes the world of his fantasies on JWeekly
"In this country, circumcision is the norm. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 89 percent of non-Hispanic white males in the United States are circumcised. If an American boy is uncircumcised, it generally means his parents are immigrants, usually Hispanic, or low-income."

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out how the very idea of opposing male infant circumcision makes me a "racist anti-Semite." But it seems Edgar Schoen can get away with the bold-faced racism that he is demonstrating here.

In Edgar Schoen's world, only circumcised, non-Hispanic white males count as being "American." This can be pardoned, and one can only pass as being truly "American," if a male comes from an affluent household, and has been circumcised. If an American boy is not circumcised, it is because he is a son to Hispanic immigrants, or low-income white folks. (And therefore don't count as being "American"?) It sounds as though Edgar Schoen would like to supplant American culture with his own culture of origin, where being circumcised is a mark of being Jewish, and not being circumcised makes you an outcast. (Although, according to tradition, a male is Jewish whether he be circumcised or not, if his mother is Jewish.)

It is interesting, the numbers Schoen wishes to quote from the CDC. 89% sounds very impressive, although this number denotes the number of adult males who are circumcised from birth. The fact is, however, that, according to the CDC, the rate of infant circumcision in this country has fallen to approximately 56%, from 80-90% in the 1980's.

The following is a graph of male infant circumcision rates by state:

Data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (H-CUP) 2009 Statistical Brief

Perhaps, at one time, circumcision was "the norm," in this country, but not so much anymore.

Schoen fails to mention the downward trend of male infant circumcision in this country because it doesn't paint his desired reality.

He also fails to hide his true interest in infant circumcision:

"The exception is a small number of middle-class boys whose parents have been convinced by activist anti-circumcision groups to leave their baby boys “intact,” as they call it. Parents targeted by lay anti-circumcision groups are usually well educated, secular and liberal, live in coastal “blue” states and are attracted to alternative/holistic medical practice.

Many Jews fall into this profile, so that now, thousands of years after the covenant between Abraham and God mandating circumcision on the eighth day (Genesis 17), we see Jewish boys with foreskins."

Schoen also happens to be Jewish, where male infant circumcision is considered to be a divine commandment, and a cherished tradition that has been defended since the time of the Maccabees. Schoen's religious conviction to male infant circumcision is in direct conflict with his feigned interest in disease prevention and public health. Here we note the disdain he has as he witnesses circumcision vanish as a Jewish tradition before his very eyes.

Schoen continues:

"The Bay Area is ground zero for activist organizations gunning against circumcision, such as NOCIRC, NOHARMM and Intact."

Well, at least he has one thing right...

"The arguments of these cultlike groups are based on anecdotes, testimonials, false theories and bogus claims with no scientific support."

Something that has always struck me as disconcerting, entertaining at times, is circumcision advocates' incorrigible projection. For example, intactivists are always being accused of being "cultlike," who always use "false theories" and have "no scientific support." We're also accused of being circumcision "fetishists," but we'll get into that later.

We must ask, what are Schoen's arguments based on?

I challenge readers to look through the current literature. Who wrote it? On what is it based? What do circumcision advocates like Schoen pass off as "scientific support?" They will find that much of the so-called "research" is nothing more than glorified opinion, written by the self-same usual suspects who are looking to vindicate circumcision, based on theories which have either not ever been proved, or even been dis-proven.

"Recently, as compelling medical evidence demonstrates the significant health advantages of circumcision on newborns, there has been a flurry of desperate activity by anti-circumcision groups, as they see their cause being  decimated," says Schoen.

But rather than furnishing said "compelling medical evidence," he goes on a tirade against human rights advocates who oppose male infant circumcision. The decimation of the intactivist cause is something Schoen would like to see materialize, though this does not easily come about by the mere shroud-waving he engages in. Actually, far from being decimated, our cause is going strong and it has circumcision advocates running scared, as readers will see.

"They picketed the local office of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the executive director had to call the police. At an AAP meeting in San Francisco in July, I was harassed by anti-circumcision protesters, leading the hotel to assign me a security guard. This all followed last year’s unsuccessful attempt to criminalize infant male circumcision in San Francisco."

And that's not all. After publishing their latest statement, many letters of criticism were written by intactivists from within and outside notable organizations, but cowards at the AAP have refused to publish them. (We know that there are letters that do not appear on the AAP website because a number of human rights activists published them openly. They are viewable here and here.)

Strangely enough, while they won't publish dissenting letters from intactivists, despite being fully referenced, they will publish Brian Morris praising the new AAP policy statement and tooting his own horn. (Brian Morris is quite possibly Australia's most vocal advocate of male infant circumcision. View his "Welcome" of the new policy here. I rebuke him here, although this too has yet to be published.)

And, as if silencing dissent regarding their latest statement weren't enough, the AAP successfully kicked the intactivist organization Intact America out from inside their trade show last year, even after four straight years of allowing them to exhibit. And, as if this weren't enough even further still, the AAP tried to have the New Orleans Police Department dismantle the intactivist protest outside of their trade show, happening on public property. (NOPD told the AAP intactivist protesters were breaking no laws.)

It is clear that the AAP and circumcision advocates like Schoen are intimidated by intactivists, because they are able to take apart their arguments and call them out on their ulterior motives. The AAP knows their latest policy statement is horrendously flawed, and they are terrified to let groups like Intact America speak on the matter, because they don't want to be confronted with the truth. The extent to which the AAP has gone to silence intactivism, that Schoen would rather hide behind a hotel security guard, shows just how terrified they are of our message, how weak their position actually is, and how inept they are at defending it.

To me, these are the actions of guilty criminals squirming under the light of scrutiny.

The AAP has released a horrendously flawed statement they cannot actually substantiate. Circumcision advocates like Schoen are too scared to confront intactivists. They know it, and they don't want to be confronted with anybody who can give them a run for their money.

 Westin employee defending Schoen from all of ONE protester.

"The documented evidence of the lifetime preventive health advantages of circumcision is overwhelming."

Underwhelming, he means. So underwhelming are the so-called "advantages" of circumcision that no medical organization, yes, not even the AAP, has found it compelling enough to recommend it.

Let us analyze Schoen's usage of the word "lifetime." What does he mean? Does that mean that in a child's lifetime, he is immune to the diseases he mentions? Let it be known; a circumcised male is as susceptible to any disease as an intact male. Circumcision does not, cannot prevent disease transmission, ever. Circumcised males must continue to use condoms for actual protection, and there is no doctor or "researcher" that can deny this fact.

"This year, the AAP stated that the significant benefits of newborn circumcision outweigh the minor risks."

They also said that these self-same "benefits" were not enough to recommend the practice, as they did in their last statement. Circumcision enthusiasts like Schoen just love to leave this part out.

"Severe infant kidney infections, which can lead to kidney damage, are 10 times more common in uncircumcised males in the first year of life."

I believe it's UTIs, not "severe kidney infection"? Really, Dr. Schoen.

"10 times" certainly sounds compelling, but what is the risk for UTIs in intact males to begin with? It's already quite low. The fact is that UTIs are already quite rare in males; they are far more common in baby girls. When a girl develops a UTI, it is easily treatable with anti-biotics. The same is true with UTIs in boys. It makes no sense to circumcise a child to prevent an already rare, easily treatable ailment. Somehow, I doubt we'll hear this from Dr. Schoen.

"The presence of a foreskin leaves a young boy susceptible to painful local infections (balanoposthitis) and inability of retraction (phimosis)."

The question is, how common are these diseases? And are they treatable without circumcision?

"In sexually active years, circumcision provides 60 percent greater protection against HIV/AIDS, which has killed over 20 million people in Africa and tens of thousands in this country. The United Nations, the World Health Organization and the National Institutes of Health have all endorsed circumcision to help prevent HIV/AIDS."

The "research" this claim is based on has been continuously under fire. One of the biggest flaws in this "research" is that the much fabled "60%" is not observable in real-world data. The research is not based on a scientifically proven causal link, but on some un-proven, and even dis-proven hypotheses.

According to USAID, HIV transmission was more prevalent among *circumcised* men in 10 out of 18 African countries. The HIV transmission rate is far higher in the US, where according to Schoen himself, over 80% of the male population is circumcised, than it is in Europe, where circumcision is rare.

But even assuming the so-called "research" to be 100% infallible, the fact of the matter is that circumcision fails as HIV prevention. It fails so drastically to prevent anything that even the authors of the "studies" cannot overstate the use of condoms.

But whats' more, the UN and WHO (which are basically the same organization) have endorsed circumcision in promiscuous ADULT MALES in high-risk areas in Africa. Dr. Schoen would like to sell the fantasy that there is this world-wide campaign to circumcise the children of the world as a HIV prevention measure. Such a campaign does not exist.

"Other sexually transmitted infections that circumcision helps protect against are genital herpes, human papilloma virus (the cause of penile and cervical cancer), trichomonas and bacterial vaginosis."

*Might* help protect, Schoen means to say. The evidence is inconclusive, which is why no physician in the right mind will recommend circumcision as a way to prevent any of these diseases; they stress the use of condoms. The fact is that circumcised males are still susceptible to these diseases, and partners of circumcised males are still susceptible to HPV transmission and bacterial vaginosis. Some research actually suggests that the HPV is more easily transmitted by circumcised males.

Continues Schoen:
"The advantages in old men include avoidance of penile cancer and urinary infections, which are prevalent in the elderly, as well as easier genital hygiene in the incapacitated."

Regarding penile cancer, this is what the American Cancer Society has to say on the matter:

In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But in many of those studies, the protective effect of circumcision was no longer seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account.

Most public health researchers believe that the risk of penile cancer is low among uncircumcised men without known risk factors living in the United States. Men who wish to lower their risk of penile cancer can do so by avoiding HPV infection and not smoking. Those who aren't circumcised can also lower their risk of penile cancer by practicing good hygiene. Most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended solely as a way to prevent penile cancer.

Geriatric care facilitation seems to be a common theme amongst circumcision advocates. Schoen is not the first to use it, as Daniel Halperin has before. (Daniel Halperin is one of the "researchers" working hard to flood the medical literature with pro-circumcision "research." His office is only a stone's throw away from Edgar Schoen's office.") Hygiene in the elderly is an interesting theme to tackle. The majority of the elderly in Europe are not circumcised, and difficulty in cleaning intact males doesn't seem to be a problem there. It is interesting that Schoen and Halperin suggest circumcision as a way to facilitate hygiene in elderly males, instead of better instruction of geriatric caretakers. Then again, Halperin and Schoen share the same culture of origin. (Both Jewish and vehement advocates of male infant circumcision.)

Continues Schoen: "The newborn period is the ideal time for circumcision."

And here begins Schoen's shameless circumcision plug.

"Not only does early circumcision lead to a lifetime of health advantages..."

Fact: There is no disease that a circumcised man, circumcised at any age, will be immune against in his lifetime. Dr. Schoen cannot deny this.

"...but it is the easiest and safest time to perform the procedure."

False; it is harder to circumcise a newborn because of the small size of the penis. The small size of the penis makes it more susceptible to glans amputation, or full ablation of the penis. Many a lawsuit has been won against over-zealous mohels and physicians. It is easier and safer to circumcise an adult male, because there is more penis to work with, and because analgesia can be properly administered, not to mention that advances in technology have spawned new devices that simplify circumcision for adult mails, as we will read about later on.

"After the trauma of birth, a newborn is programmed to deal with distress."

Babies were just born to be tortured! How about that. The same distress a baby girl would have to deal with, right? Oh no! Perish the thought.

"Stress hormones, such as hydrocortisone and adrenaline, are extremely high, as is the pain-relieving compound endorphin. The male hormone, testosterone, is often in the adult range. All these hormone levels fall within the first few weeks of life."

These hormones shoot up high as a result of circumcision. Schoen does not mention this.

"The newborn foreskin is thin..."

Not thin enough. One of the most common complications of circumcision is hemorrhage. This happens when the foreskin is not fully crushed. If an open circumcision wound is not sutured in time, the child can easily bleed to death, as it has already happened in many cases.


"...making the procedure quick and safe..."

Female infant circumcision can be performed "quickly" and "safely" too.

 "...and virtually painless when using local anesthesia."

Now I see where Neil Pollock (also friends with Schoen, also Jewish) gets his propaganda.

Schoen's claims depend on a few dubious premises; a) that analgesia methods are actually used, and b) that if and when used, they are actually effective. Circumcising physicians may use Tylenol, sugar pacifiers, a topical cream, and/or a local anesthetic injection called a dorsal penile ring block. Research shows, however, that most physicians, as much as 96%, do not use analgesia. The topical anesthetic only serves to numb the area to lessen the pain of the injection, but studies have shown that a dorsal penile ring block is not always effective in stopping the pain of circumcision. (See here and here.) In at least one study, data shows that giving sugar to a child doesn't help to reduce the perception of pain in the child. And, of course, none of these do anything for post-operative pain, and for the pain the child must endure during recovery.

Once again, Schoen is living in a dreamworld.

"Healing is rapid, and complications, usually minor, are less than 0.5 percent."

That depends on what Schoen considers a "minor complication." Botched circumcisions occur so often that there are physicians that actually make a living from circumcision botch corrections. Other complications of circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation of the glans, hemorrhaging and even death.

"At older ages the procedure is more difficult..."

Why necessarily so?

"...with a longer recovery time and a tenfold higher complication rate."

It'd be nice to see the research Schoen uses for this claim.

"The need for general anesthesia makes the procedure riskier."

"Riskier?" Dr. Schoen must correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't the use of general anesthesia become LESS risky as a child grows into an adult?

Almost all circumcision deaths have been due to complications from general anesthesia."

Again, I would like to see what medical literature Schoen backs this claim with.

If general anesthesia is Schoen's concern, then he hasn't been paying attention to the latest developments in adult circumcision in Africa. Is he aware of the new PrePex device being marketed to circumcise adult males in Africa as a so-called HIV prevention measure?

If we're to believe PrePex CEO Tzemeret Fuerst (Can you guess her culture of origin?), the new device requires no surgery, no anesthetic, and the complication rate is rather low. As more devices like these are invented, the myth that "circumcision is much more riskier in adult males" becomes less and less true.

"As noted, uncircumcised males, compared with those who are circumcised, are prone to many health dangers from birth through old age..."

Which are not observed in countries where circumcision is rare...

"...and also may have social problems in the United States, where circumcision is the standard."

 At 56% and falling, not anymore...

"In addition, the easier genital hygiene leads to improved and more varied sexual relations."

This one is increasingly laughable to hear. In other words, European and Asian men have much trouble finding a partner. Is this observable behavior in the real world?

The fact is, genital hygiene can be improved without circumcision. And losing part of your penis means LESS varied sexual relations, not MORE. Once again, it is quite self-evident that Edgar Schoen is growing more and more senile.

"Above all, Jewish men with foreskins are abandoning an ancient family tradition and culture."

Note "above all." Here, Schoen's true concerns come to light, which is the gradual, but sure, abandonment of what is probably the most cherished of Jewish customs; NOT disease prevention and public health. It is disingenuous to be feigning an interest in public health and disease prevention, when true intentions and convictions lie elsewhere.

"My advice for anti-circumcision Jewish parents is, 'enough already.'"

 Funny, this is the same advice I have for Schoen.

"Dr. Edgar J. Schoen is the former chief of pediatrics at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland and clinical professor of pediatrics, emeritus, at UCSF. He lives in Richmond."

He is also the most vociferous advocate of male infant circumcision in the United States. He is also Jewish and has a religious conviction to defend and protect this custom, which is falling out of favor, even among Jews themselves. His feigned interest in disease prevention and public health conflict with a conviction to preserve a cherished tradition.

Edgar Schoen: Rejected Circumcision Evangelist

America is not the only place where Schoen has tried to establish his dreamworld. Apparently he is a circumcision evangelist who has tried to (unsuccessfully) spread his vision to other parts of the world. The following is an excerpt of a letter written against him in the publication Disease in Childhood:


Schoen’s claims have been rejected wherever he goes. When he published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1990, his views were opposed by Poland. When he published in Acta Paediatrica Scandinavia in 1991, his views were rebutted by Bollgren and Winberg. When Schoen published in this journal in 1997, his views were countered by Hitchcock and also by Nicoll. In the present instance, his views are offset by Malone.

When the Canadian Paediatric Society published their position statement on neonatal circumcision in 1996, they followed the views of Poland, not those of Schoen. Although Schoen was chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) taskforce on circumcision that published in 1989, he did not serve on the AAP taskforce on circumcision that published in 1999. That second taskforce distanced the AAP from the views published by Schoen’s taskforce a decade earlier.

(In their latest statement, the AAP continues to abstain from endorsing male infant circumcision, concluding that the benefits, even though they purportedly "outweigh the risks," are still “not enough” to recommend the practice.)

Schoen’s present views on circumcision are strikingly similar to those of Wolbarst, which were published nearly a century ago. This suggests that Schoen’s views are founded in a desire to preserve his culture of origin, not in medical science.

Read more here. 

Edgar Schoen, the Circumfetishist?
Edgar Schoen has a few peculiar quirks readers may or may not know about. First, he is a collector of large bow ties. In most pictures of him, you will always see him wearing one.

My, he sure prefers black and white pictures of himself, doesn't he.

In addition to his love for bow ties, Edgar Schoen is a poet, and he has written verses exalting the beauty of the circumcised penis. He appeared on the Penn and Teller show "Bullshit" for their episode on circumcision, where he can be quoted saying circumcised penises look and smell better. He can also be seen reciting some of his poetry:  

"It's a great work of art like the statue of Venus
If you're wearing a hat on the head of your penis" 
~Edgar J. Schoen

The "hat" presumably referring to the visible glans?

But what I find to be most disconcerting concerning Schoen is his involvement with known circumfetish groups Circlist and Gilgal Society. Groups such as these openly admit to a morbid fascination with circumcision to the point of sado-masochistic fetish. They advertise that doctors are among their members. There are those on the Internet who discuss the erotic stimulation they experience by watching other males being circumcised, swap fiction about it, and trade in videotapes of actual circumcisions. Some call them "circumfetishists."

Schoen has been seen sending emails to and from the Circlist email list. Circlist is a website and discussion group for men who sexually fantasize about performing and receiving circumcisions, often on small children. Schoen, appears as an author on a pamphlet put out by Gilgal Society (along with the names of many other prominent circumcision "researchers" and people who claim to be "experts" on circumcision, such as Bertran Auvert, Robert Bailey,  Daniel Halperin, Thomas Wiswell, and Brian Morris.).

Could it be that his obsession with penis cutting extends even further than culture preservation? 

One thing is for sure. Edgar Schoen is a veteran circumcision evangelist whose time has come. It seems after all this time he is stuck in a time warp, still living in a time when being circumcised was the mark of being an affluent American. That time has been slowly fading, and it seems he, and a number of dedicated circumcision advocates, are working hard to try and roll back the clock. He's an old fart whose logic and reasoning are beginning to fail. (Some may argue this may have happened a long time ago.) 

The times have changed, and he is but a living fossil in a world that no longer needs nor wants him. When is he going to finally kick the bucket and sail off to his idealistic dreamworld of the land of the mutilated penis?

Disclaimer: 

The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole.

Some may argue that I am engaging in ad hominem. However, pointing out conflicts of interest is not ad hominem. The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia's entry on ad hominem (4/22/2012):

Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem – it is generally well accepted that an "authority" needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem.

Related Articles: 

CIRCUMGATE: UK Circumfetish Czar Finally Caught Red-Handed

AUSTRALIA: Brian Morris vs. Modern Medicine

Letter to Editors at the Vancouver Sun

CIRCUMCISION: The Silent Killer

It's not that uncommon; very often I read on Internet mediums, be it an online parenting forum, some Facebook group or page for parents, or sometimes it just appears on my news feed, someone posts something along the lines of:

"I ask for prayers. Donovan is fighting for his life after some breathing problems he had after his circumcision."

Or, "Please pray for our family. Justin's circumcision wound had trouble healing, and now he's in critical condition."

Of course everyone offers their sympathy.

"We'll be prayin' for ya hon..."

"God is watching over him."

And, of course, when some one dares to call a spade a spade...

"What a tragedy. But was this necessary? Did the doctor tell you this would be a risk?"

...all hell breaks loose:

"Shut the *** up, you heartless ***!!!"

"Circumcision had nothing to do with it! Go the *** away!"

Maybe the person calling out the elephant in the room is even banned from the group, and his/her posts are deleted.

In a few cases I've seen, the tragedy ends in death, pissing MORE of us off, and by this time many can't stand it.

Many readers will recall the Joshua Haskins case, where the mother posted every detail on her blog (her son would not stop bleeding), and then deleted them. While it was perfectly clear that her son was having complications directly caused by his circumcision (at the last minute, doctors determined he needed one more suture on his penis), she started denying this, touting the line her doctors told her to repeat; "He died of heart problems he had before, not his circumcision."

Certainly, Josh was born with heart problems and he spent the first days of his life in a NICU. But the "heart problems" were not what we were reading about on her blog. Josh bled uncontrollably for seven hours until the doctors finally decided to give him an extra suture, but by then it was too late.

Intactivists following Joshua's mother's blog were not going to let this one go. They were following her blog right up to the point where the doctors approved Josh's circumcision, and many tried to warn her about the risk of death. And when Joshua died, the criticism intensified, as did readers who came to Joshua's mother's defense.

"How dare you attack this mother in her moment of grief!"

"You've got some nerve taking advantage of this mother for your cause!"

No one seemed to grieve that Joshua's tiny, fragile state was taken advantage of, or that if he hadn't undergone this needless surgery, he would still be alive.

You know, perhaps some intactivists did go too far with their comments. Some did get pretty nasty, and understandably so.

Perhaps things would be different had we waited for the grieving process to end. Or would they?

Would the Haskins' be more open or closed to listen to others regarding their son's cause of death? Would they be open, or closed to listening to the idea that their son may have died needlessly?

And these catastrophes keep coming. I keep reading pleas for prayers for boys who are left dying after their circumcisions. I keep reading of folks who lost babies just after their circumcisions (but insist it was something else).

It's different when you hear about this from people in your immediate vicinity instead of Facebook.

Not too long ago, a cousin of mine was circulating a plea for prayers among my family for a couple who had just lost their first baby boy in her congregation. I didn't need to inquire too deeply.

"Such a shame too; he only needed to be circumcised before they were released from the hospital."

My cousin said.

I didn't say anything; this was a couple in a church I don't even attend.

But my cousin couldn't seem to put two and two together. More important to her is the comfort she would derive from the thought that others would be praying.

Perhaps when a child is fighting for his life isn't the time to talk about circumcision.

Perhaps when parents are grieving isn't the time to talk about it either.

Death is a risk of circumcision.

An estimated 117 deaths occur every year in the United States due to circumcision. This is a rough estimate, and more conservative than its predecessors (in the past, estimates have been as high as 200 or more deaths per year). The fact is, hospitals are not required to release this data. Adding to this is the fact that doctors lie about a child's cause of death to cover their own bases, and parents, wanting to divorce themselves of any fault in their son's death, are complicit in repeating whatever their doctors tell them.

The child "bled to death." The child "suffered hemorrhage." The child "went into cardiac arrest." The child died of "septic shock."

Nevermind the circumcision performed on him beforehand.

What have the parents to say about the possibility that circumcision most likely killed their baby?

They're grieving. Don't you dare bother them.

And a year later, "Don't remind them. It breaks their heart every time."

Nobody wants to talk about it.

Meanwhile, the tragedies continue.

So when is it a good time to talk about it?

When is a good time to break the silence?

Related Posts:

Circumcision Death: Another One Bites the Dust

Circumcision KILLS

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"

Circumcision Just After a NICU

 

The Circumcision Blame Game

In all my years as an intactivist (I've been against circumcision since I was about 16, I'm 31 now), I often come across the dilemma of who is responsible for the circumcision of children in America. Who's fault is it if you are circumcised and not happy with it?

Who should you blame?

Before going on, I'd like to introduce the above image. It was uploaded to Facebook by one Jonathon Conte, who is a pro-active intactivist in the San Francisco area, and belongs to the local group Bay Area Intactivists.

The caption read:

"This is the pattern that I continue to see when doing various intactivist protests and events. Nobody wants to accept responsibility and the blame goes round and round.

"Talk to the parents!" "Talk to the obstetricians!" "We don't do them. Talk to the pediatricians!" "Nobody told me it wasn't necessary!"

On the bright side, they used to all defend the practice, now they pass blame. Blame acknowledges a shameful act. Progress."

And Jonathon is right.

There is something suspicious going on when, instead of owning responsibility, it is being passed around like a hot potato.

Except, I think the above image is wrong. It places undue weight on parents, with them at the top and the doctors at the bottom. It implies parents are entitled to a choice, and physicians are loyal subjects who merely listen and obey.

But since when does medicine work this way?

For what other medical treatment or procedure are parents in a position of entitlement to "decide" at whim, without any kind of clinical indication or medical diagnosis? For what other surgery are surgeons slaves to demanding parents? Do parents actually wield so much power?

Aren't parents usually given the power to choose a method of treatment for their children AFTER a doctor has determined that there is some kind of clinical or medical necessity?

For these reasons and more, I believe Jonathon's image is a false paradigm. This delusion of "parental choice" is a false paradigm invented by doctors, the trade unions they belong to, and it is perpetuated by the media.

The image looks something more like this:

Doctors would like to pretend as if parents had this power over them, and they are nothing but loyal subjects at their beck and call. But let's analyze the balance of power here.

Professional Responsibility
First off, it must be be asked; who holds the professional license?

To earn the title of "doctor," physicians must go to school for a number of years. Additionally, they are also responsible for keeping their information up to date. They hang their certifications proudly on their office wall and constantly remind others that they are not to drop the title of "doctor" when being referred to.

It is a doctor's professional responsibility to know better than his patients. It is his professional responsibility to determine the presence or absence of a pathogen, and to determine whether or not treatment, surgical or non-surgical, is medically or clinically indicated.

It is why he is visited, and it is why he gets a paycheck.

And yet, when it comes to circumcision, they are suddenly clueless.

So clueless, that they must pawn the burden of determining the medical necessity of circumcision on parents, most of whom unfamiliar with medical literature.

The mighty and powerful doctor is suddenly too stupid to do his job, and thus hands it off to naive parents he, in most other circumstances, views as intellectually inferior to himself.

Who Wields the Knife?
Let's analyze the areas of medical expertise. Who performs circumcisions for parents?

Here, we see two types of physicians vying for a piece of the circumcision pie; pediatricians and obstetricians/gynecologists (AKA: OB/GYNs) It makes sense that pediatricians are performing surgery on children; a pediatrician's area of expertise is the health and well-being of children.

But wait, this is weird, OB/GYNs are trained in the health and well-being of WOMEN. Vulvas, vaginas, cervixes and ovaries (and much much more). One wonders why OB/GYNs are even part of the picture in the first place.

And yet, according to national surveys, OB/GYNs perform the bulk of infant circumcisions.

The only relation OB/GYNs seem to have with MALE infant babies is that, as caretakers of pregnant women, they are closest in proximity to intact male newborns, and thus have first dibs at cashing in on the procedure; pediatricians deal with the child once he's already out. As experts in FEMALE healthcare, it would actually make more sense for OB/GYNs to be offering sunat operations to expectant mothers.

Why are physicians, whose primary expertise is the health and well-being of WOMEN, profiting from performing non-medical surgery on healthy MALE children?

"You take care of a woman through her pregnancy, for nearly a year...and you're lucky if you see $1500. But a circumcision is 15 minutes, and it's $300 a pop. It's candy."
~OB writing in 'Parents' Place' on the circumcision turf war between OB/GYNs and pediatricians 

So Who's To Blame?
As medical scholars, as bearers of professional licenses, but most of all, as actual facilitators of the procedure itself, the answer is that it is physicians who bear full responsibility for circumcision.

Before treatment can be administered, it is the responsibility of a physician to perform a diagnosis, to determine the presence or absence of a pathogen or medical condition, and to determine whether or not surgical intervention is necessary to treat said medical condition.

The standard of care for therapeutic surgery in most of the rest of the world requires the medical benefits of the surgery to far outweigh the medical risks and harms, or for the surgery to correct a congenital abnormality. Unnecessarily invasive procedures should not be used where alternative, less invasive techniques, are equally efficient and available. It is unethical and inappropriate to perform surgery for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown there to be other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive.

Circumcision seems to be the only instance in medicine where standards of care are overridden in lieu of "parental choice."

How Physicians Absolve Themselves
It is the professional duty of a physician to determine the validity of the treatment they administer, and of the procedures they conduct.

In the special case of circumcision, however, physicians get away with profiting from this non-medical procedure on healthy, non-consenting individuals, by pawning off their responsibility on parents. Doctors push the paradigm of "the great parental decision" forward, and the media helps perpetuate it.

In their latest statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics came very close to, but stopped short of recommending infant circumcision for all infants (contrary to popular belief). Despite touting over and over again that "the benefits out weigh the risks," they must still admit that the "benefits are not enough to recommend the procedure," concluding that "the final decision should be made by parents." (This was their exact position in their last statement in 1999.)

The result is a spineless, non-committal statement that sounds like an endorsement, if not outright recommendation, but is actually nothing more than self-absolution of professional responsibility, and the undue placement of an onus on parents.

Let me run this by readers again; the AAP, a professional medical organization, could not use the latest "benefits" in order to issue a recommendation for circumcision. Yet, parents, most of whom are incapable of discerning medical literature, are expected to take the same information, that medical professionals could not use to recommend circumcision, and somehow come up with a more reasonable conclusion (than medical professionals with professional licenses???).

Parents are being given the duty to make the medical value judgements, that actually belongs to the professionals carrying out the procedure.

The doctor stokes in parents a false sense of entitlement, convinces them to sign a ready-made release form, and thus he is legally (or illegally?) absolved from any responsibility whatsoever.

Thus, doctors profit at the expense of healthy, non-consenting individuals.

Our legal court system seems to be deliberately looking the other way at this practice.

Is This Actually Legal?
Currently having parents sign a consent form for non-therapeutic surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals seems perfectly legal. But is it?

Without medical or clinical indication, can doctors actually be performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents?

How is approaching parents of a healthy, non-consenting child, and soliciting a non-therapeutic, permanently altering procedure and eliciting some kind of "decision" NOT charlatanism or medical fraud?

How is it not a criminal act to physicians to place the duty of making a medical value judgement on naive parents, who are trusting them for non-interested medical advice?

What parents WOULDN'T choose circumcision for their children, being told that they would succumb to cancer and AIDS otherwise?

Doesn't it strike people as odd that doctors are asking parents to weigh "benefits and risks" that could not bring medical organizations in or outside the US to endorse infant circumcision?

Why don't doctors inform parents of this fact, instead of stoking in them a false sense if entitlement?

Shouldn't doctors know better than to realize a procedure they know has no therapeutic value in healthy, non-consenting children?

Even if the parents demand circumcision for their children, isn't it the duty of a physician with integrity to refuse to do this? (As he would with any other non-medical procedure a parent would demand?)

Why are physicians able to absolve themselves by pointing to parents and saying "They made me do it?"

Cut Parents Some Slack
On various mediums where the circumcision debate is happening, it seems the prevailing attitude amongst people against circumcision, and even amongst angry circumcised men themselves, is to blame parents. On foreskin restoration forums, on Facebook, on news commentaries, I often read about angry circumcised men who resent their parents, who have had nasty fights with them to the point of breaking off relationships.

It doesn't help that there is also this attitude amongst parents who have circumcised their children, or plan on circumcising their future children, to have a sense of entitlement to having their children circumcised. "I'm the parent, I decide," seems to be the prevailing attitude amongst parents who advocate for infant circumcision. Of course this attitude draws the ire of angry men and angry intactivists, aggravating the situation.

Adding to the situation is that, as already mentioned, medical professionals place the onus of "the great decision" on parents. Angry intactivists, angry sons, and the very medical profession fleeing from professional responsibility. So much weight on parents' shoulders!

But what do parents say when asked as to why they had their sons circumcised?

Most parents have their sons circumcised out of tradition, because it is a religious conviction, or because the father and his father were circumcised. But, almost as if parents knew this weren't enough, these alibis are reinforced with "My doctor told me it was best." Or "My doctor told me it's cleaner and it prevents many diseases."

I say, parents should be cut some slack.

It would be one thing if parents actually ponied up, bought an exacto knife and attempted to perform the procedure themselves. Most just agree to it because they are told not doing so will result in penile cancer or AIDS. I believe that most parents actually have the well-being of their children in mind. I believe that most parents, being given the facts not being disclosed to them by their physicians, would refuse to have this done to their children. I believe that most parents, once they understood what circumcision is, would take it all back if they could.

Parents shouldn't be blamed.

(They also shouldn't be congratulated and/or encouraged to "celebrate" their ignorance, but I already address this on another blog post.)

Maybe some can, but most simply don't know.

Remember who holds the professional license.

Remember whose professional duty it is to know better.

Remember who ultimately holds the knife.

The following pie chart demonstrates how many circumcisions are carried out by parents in this country.

It's physicians in which parents place their trust.

And it's physicians who betray this trust.

This Is Not About Judging Parents
I think it needs to be made clear to both intactivists and parents of circumcised children alike; the point of intactivism is not to be making parents feel guilty.

One of the greatest obstacles for intactivism is that parents who circumcised their chidlren will often get on the defense, accusing those who oppose circumcision of "judging" and trying to make parents feel guilty, when that's not the point at all.

The point of intactivism is to bring attention to the fact that the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors is a violation of the most basic of human rights, and to educate and enlighten both doctors and parents alike, so that this madness ends.

Parents who honestly wanted the best for their children need not feel judged. If I didn't know what I know now, and a doctor told me that my son would surely develop penile cancer and die of AIDS, I think I would probably choose circumcision too.

Can parents be blamed because they were asked to make choices based on skewed or limited information? If they were even given information at all?

No.

As I express in this blog post, the burden of responsibility rests in physicians who disseminate misinformation, and who profit at the expense of parental naivete, and the fact that children cannot speak for themselves. While parents, at least for the time being, are given the final say, it is doctors who choose what information to give to, and not give to parents. Doctors are either guilty of dispensing misinformation, or failing to update their information databases. (Actually, they're guilty of even bringing the subject up in the absence of medical necessity.)

In avenues where I have expressed this, I have often been berated by angry intactivists and men. They tell me:

"The information is out there. Maybe one day parents could claim ignorance, but now we have the Internet. You've got to be real dumb, or willfully ignorant if you say you don't know better."

This is true to a certain extent. Yes, the information is out there, and people can look if they wanted. Parents, if they took the time, could sift through all the medical gobbledygook, and come to their own conclusions.

But whose job is that?

Isn't it doctors who are paid big bucks to determine the medical validity of a surgical procedure?

Doctors are supposed to have gone to school for many years to learn their trade.

Why would parents, most of whom never went to medical school, be more qualified than a learned doctor to determine the medical necessity of a surgical procedure?

That's what I don't understand, and I've asked this above.

The AAP has concluded, as it did in its last statement, that the "benefits are not enough to recommend circumcision." They still place the onus on parents to weigh the "pros and cons," and make a "decision." "Pros and cons" that could not convince an entire body of qualified medical professionals to endorse circumcision. But suddenly, parents will have better knowledge and the power to discern the medical literature an entire professional medical organization could not?

The bottom line is that parents, and most people, would still rather believe a man in a white lab coat than they would some website on the Internet, or some angry activist who can be easily dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. That people place too much trust in doctors, putting them up on a pedestal and deifying them is a sad state of affairs, but its reality.

It's also why doctors, of all people, are responsible. They are given trust by well meaning parents. And they, taking advantage of their position of power, betray this trust.

So intactivists, go easy parents.

Angry men, don't judge your parents so harshly.

They are not to blame.

Instead, blame physicians who continue to profit at the expense of the basic human rights of healthy, non-consenting individuals and their parents.

Blame the complacent system that allows this kind of charlatanism and medical fraud to continue unchecked.

Challenge institutions of higher education and professional medical organizations that continuously shirk their professional responsibilities and pawning them off on naive parents.

I close with my Mission Statement, which can always be viewed in my About page:

Mission Statement
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, with which all boys are born; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individual is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individual, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents.

Genital integrity, autonomy and self-determination are inalienable human rights. I am against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors because it violates these rights.

Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.

It is mistaken, the belief that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.

DISCLAIMER:
The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole, thank you.

FORCED MALE CIRCUMCISION: NPO Clitoraid Denounces Germany, Appeals to UN

Clitoraid, a private non-profit organization, which aims to assist FGM victims who want to undo their mutilations, has spoken out to denounce the German decision to legalize the ritual genital mutilation of boys.

“Bodily harm is against the fundamental rights of all children, and we can’t understand when a so-called civilized country such as Germany would allow its male babies to be so readily mutilated legally!" said Nadine Gary, spokesperson for Clitoraid.

In addition to denouncing the German legalization of the ritual genital cutting of boys, the organization is urging a worldwide end to genital mutilation of male children as well, appealing to the UN to forced genital mutilation worldwide for both genders.

“On Nov. 28, the United Nations passed a resolution that condemns all cultural and religious arguments in favor of FGM because the act constitutes a gross violates of children rights, but how can the U.N. ban Female Genital Mutilation and not denounce Male Genital Mutilation as well? Is it exempting certain religions from respecting the fundamental right of baby boys?” Gary asked.

Gary continues, "According to the World Health Organization, 30 percent of males worldwide are circumcised. This means billions of people have been mutilated without their consent."

Brigitte Boisselier, Ph.D., head of Clitoraid, affirmed that mutilation of any baby or child in the name of a god is unacceptable.

“It’s been done for centuries under the pretense that a god requested it, but no religion should be allowed to harm infants or children who can’t give informed consent,” she said. “We’re setting up a hospital in Africa that’s due to open next year, where female victims can go to have genital repair surgery for free. “And, thanks to Clitoraid, thousands more can find relief at several clinics in North America. But we’ve also been getting e-mail from hundreds of circumcised men who want to have their own mutilation undone. They need help too! So, as Rael has repeatedly stated, it’s urgent to have all the old scriptures reviewed by an independent committee on human rights so that all religious group practices are in agreement with the Declaration of Human Rights.”

Rejected Amendments to German Circumcision Law
Amendments to the German law to legalize the genital mutilation of male children were put forth by circumcision opponents in the final Bundestag debates. Among the amendments that were rejected,  was a provision that parents cannot be allowed to circumcise a child if he is able to, and does verbally express his wishes to not be circumcised. (e.g., if the child can and does say "NO," the parents can no longer circumcise him)

The Bundestag majority rejected this amendment, meaning that according to the new law, the parents can physically drag him into the doctor's office, restrain him and circumcise him against his express wishes, and he has no protection.

Another amendment proposed that parents waited until he was 14 to decide whether or not he wanted to be circumcised.

This too was rejected.

 In Muslim traditions, boys are circumcised at later ages against their verbalized express wishes.

Sexist Double-Standards and Special Pleading
The tendency around female and male genital cutting is to sensationalize female genital cutting, while downplaying male genital cutting. While female genital cutting is rejected as "mutilation," and attempts to medicalize it are squarely condemned, the media seems to welcome, perhaps even encourage "research" which tries to find so-called "medical benefits" in male genital cutting.

While male circumcision advocates can get away with reading off a laundry list of the so-called "medical benefits" of male circumcision, advocates of female circumcision who try to clothe their cause in science are immediately stopped in their tracks.

Not so long ago, the AAP tried to approve a "ritual nick" for girls. The procedure wouldn't remove anything, and the AAP admitted that it was much less severe than male circumcision. The logic behind this move was that if they offered a "ritual nick" here in the States, then parents wouldn't take their daughters abroad to have more drastic procedures done. There was a world outcry, and the AAP was forced to retract their endorsement. The message was clear; under no circumstances were medical professionals to come near a girl's vulva with a knife, not even for a "ritual nick."


When AAP fellow Dr. Hatem al-Haj, PhD, MD published a 41-page Arabic-language paper titled “Circumcision of Girls: Jurisprudence and Medicine," where he says female circumcision is recommended and even “an honor” for women, he was fired by the MAYO Clinic. (Interestingly enough, a petition started to revoke this man's certifications states in bold lettering: "Remember: It doesn't matter how "little" you cut a little girl's vulva. It's still felony child abuse.")

Yet Jewish doctors who circumcise boys can get away with both reciting the "circumcision has medical benefits" sutra, and expounding with beaming pride that circumcision is this "time-honored tradition."

I'll have to steal the quote from above and make it part of the intactivist movement:

It doesn't matter how "little" you cut a little boy's penis. It is still child abuse, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

To continue with my own quotes:

Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.

It is mistaken, the belief that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.

Thank you, Clitoraid, for acknowledging that the genital cutting of BOTH sexes is a gross violation of the most basic of human rights, and for resolving to help victims of BOTH genders regain what was stolen from them.

Visit:
http://clitoraid.org/

Related cause:
Help find ways to restore intact organs for men who want to undo their mutilations

 http://www.foregen.org/

Related Blog Posts:
Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

Germany "Protects" the Forced Genital Mutilation of Boys

The Cologne Ruling and the Limitations of Religious Freedom  

So Where's the "Sunat" Party?

"Religious Freedom" and "Parental Choice" Not Absolute: Yet Another Example

Perhaps the most classic of arguments invoked in favor of male infant circumcision are those of "religious freedom" and "parental choice." In actuality, "religious freedom" and "parental choice" aren't absolute, and I've given examples of this in past blogs.

Often, those who defend the forced circumcision of male children appeal to people's resentment of government intervention. They would like to pretend like being a parent is a carte blanche for parents to do whatever they want with their children, and the government never intervenes.

The blunt fact of the matter is that, if being a parent justified everything one does with their children, there wouldn't be need for child protective services.

Last year, a mother lost custody of her 8yo daughter for injecting Botox into her face for a child beauty pageant. This prompted New Jersey law makers to make it illegal to inject Botox into children, UNLESS it is for actual medical purposes. (Sound familiar?) The year before, a man was given prison time for tattooing his gang's symbol onto his son's abdomen. In Oregon, a law was passed that prohibits parents from denying their children medical care, much to the chagrin of the "Followers of Christ" church, who believes that god alone should cure disease.

And, the classic case that trumps "religious freedom" and "parental choice," in 1996 a ban was instituted, banning female genital cutting of any kind. All female genital cutting, ranging from infibulation, to a "ritual nick" as proposed by the AAP, is illegal in the United States, and punishable by law. No exempt for "religious" cutting of female children's genitals exist.

To add another example where "religious freedom" and "parental choice" fail, a Texan man has been jailed for carving a pentagram on the back of his son. It could be said that this man was merely practicing his "freedom of religion," and exercising his "parental choice." But these arguments just aren't going to fly, aren't they.

Interestingly enough, in another recent case, a Canadian man recently lost a high court appeal to have charges of aggravated assault against him thrown out; he tried to circumcise his own child with a knife. His arguments? "He was practicing his religious beliefs."

"This is a case about child abuse... This is not a case about the applicant's religious freedom or circumcision generally," it was argued.

How the material circumstances of the case bear on the man's religious freedom or circumcision generally is beyond me. Now, it seems, the government is determining what "proper" religious rituals are, and defining what constitutes "child abuse."

Andrew Freedman of the AAP "task force" on circumcision defense circumcised his own son on his parents' kitchen table. Yet, for the Canadian case, the trial judge found the kitchen was not a sanitary place for a surgical procedure.

So when is it "child abuse?" When is it not?

Why was it "child abuse" for one man to cut his child's genitals on the kitchen table, on the grounds of "religious beliefs" and "parental choice," but not the other?

How far are "religious beliefs" and "parental choices" protected until the government is allowed to intervene?


Other "parental choices" that don't fly under "religious freedom."

A father slashes his child's head for the Holy Day of Ashura

Muslim women perform "sunat" (ritual genital cutting) on a girl

Child marriage in India

Germany "Protects" the Forced Genital Mutilation of Boys

"For the right to circumcise little boys."

Well, it appears that Germany chose to cave to political blackmail and pass a law to "protect" the so-called "religious right" to take a child and mutilate his genitals.

I've already commented on this before, so instead of repeating myself, I'm just going to dissect a Reuters' article reporting this turn of events, since they're not publishing comments.

"The ban - imposed on the grounds that circumcision amounted to "bodily harm" - triggered an emotional debate over the treatment of Jews and other religious minorities, a sensitive subject in a country still haunted by its Nazi past," begins the article.

The Cologne ruling was not mistaken; unless there are medical indications, circumcision DOES amount to bodily harm, and the boy involved in the ruling was one of many cases in point.

What's interesting is that one bodily harm, circumcision, is being defended by alluding to the bodily harm German Nazis imposed on Jews. A bit of an oxymoron. "Shame on Germany for wanting to protect children from bodily harm; remember what they did to Jews sixty years ago." (?)
 
"The outcry prompted Germany's centre-right government and opposition parties to draw up legislation confirming the practice was legal - overruling the decision by a court in the western city of Cologne."



As if the legality of forced genital mutilation on minors was something to confirm. I'm afraid German Common Law is rather clear on this, as are the laws of many other industrialized nations. Germany's government was faced between upholding its Common Law, and divorcing themselves from Nazi labels.

"The new law passed by an overwhelming majority in Bundestag lower house said the operation could be carried out, as long as parents were informed about the risks."

This may actually be a light at the end of the tunnel for human rights activists; ultra-orthodox rabbis in New York are fighting to keep the City from passing a law that demands precisely this.

Still, Germany would never allow female circumcision "as long as parents were informed about the risks."

"Jewish groups welcomed the move."

In New York, Jewish groups are fighting to keep the city from requiring them to inform parents about the risks, as this is seen as an "infringement of  their religious freedoms."

"This vote and the strong commitment shown ... to protect this most integral practice of the Jewish religion is a strong message to our community for the continuation and flourishing of Jewish life in Germany," said Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish Congress.

 Jewish life, yes. Muslim life? Only if your child is male; some Muslims see female circumcision as "an integral practice of the Jewish religion." Take a look at what's happening in South East Asia;
 the Malaysian Health Ministry wants to medicalize female genital cutting.

Germany's Catholic Bishops Conference said it hoped the bill would help safeguard religious freedoms. No comment was immediately available from the country's Central Council of Muslims.



SOME religious freedoms. Actually, only this particular "religious freedom" as it applies to healthy, non-consenting boys.

Does the new law protect these "religious freedoms?"

A father slashes his child's head for the Holy Day of Ashura

Muslim women perform "sunat" (ritual genital cutting) on a girl

Child marriage in India

"PAIN MINIMISED
The May ruling centered on the case of a Muslim boy who bled after the procedure and the ban only applied to the area around Cologne."

But this forced lawmakers to consider a change in the law, as, actually, the Cologne ruling reinforces German Common Law.

"But some doctors in other parts of Germany started refusing to carry out circumcisions, saying it was unclear whether they would face prosecution."

Actually, they stopped because it was rather clear to THEM that they would.

"Under the new law, a doctor or trained expert must conduct the operation and children must endure as little pain as possible, which means an anesthetic should be used. The procedure cannot take place if there is any doubt about the child's health."

No such provisions and exceptions exist for female genital cutting.

Female genital cutting is always wrong, and it doesn't matter if a doctor or a "trained expert" conducts the ceremony, and that the children "endure as little pain as possible."

For most other surgery as performed by doctors and physicians, surgery is performed AS A RESULT of a doubt in the child's health. i.e., there is medical necessity that prompts it. This seems to be the only case where a child must be HEALTHY to undergo surgery.


"Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said no other country in the world country had made the religious circumcision of boys an offence."

Plenty of laws to make religious circumcision of girls an offence though...

"In our modern and secular state, it is not the job of the state to interfere in children's' upbringing," she said.

Except if the child is a girl, I'm sure.

Child welfare group Deutsche Kinderhilfe disagreed, saying the government had "(pushed) through the legalization of the ritual of genital circumcision ... against the advice of child right campaigners and the medical profession."


And they are right.

This is purely a political move, and everybody knows it.

German Common Law is rather clear on this matter, and the Cologne Ruling serves to make it even clearer. German lawmakers are choosing to look the other way because they fear Nazi labels.

All double-standards, self-contradiction and beating around the bush. Let's see how this move plays out, as it flies in the face of Germany's Common Law. Special pleading. What's next? "Protecting" female circumcision? Sharia Law to appease the Muslims?

I've asked before; how far are "parental rights" and "religious freedoms" protected?

As long as doing so doesn't label you Nazi, it seems.

Closing Remarks
Most of what I have to say on this matter I've already done so on past post, but I wanted to copy and paste the closing remarks here.

Intactivists, do not despair; to those of you who do, you should have this coming. We shouldn't despair when politicians with agendas change the laws to appease voters and preserve popularity. Laws don't change anything. They never do. In a social movement, laws are the very last thing to change. What we need to work on is changing people's attitudes. Female circumcision was swimmingly outlawed because our country already viewed the practice with disdain. History shows us that laws reflect social change, not bring it about. And, it looks like, judging by news articles and reports, the fact that more and more people are openly talking about the practice, the very fact that it's being questioned in courts, change is already happening.

Do not despair, and keep educating. More and more people listen every day.

 "Truth suppress'd, whether by courts or crooks, will find an avenue to be told"

~Sheila Steele

 "Do nothing secretly; for Time sees and hears all things, and discloses all"

~Sophocles

DISCLAIMER:
The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole, thank you.
~Joseph4GI




Related Post:
The Cologne Ruling and the Limitations of Religious Freedom

New University of California Logo: Circumcision Clamp?

When I first saw it I couldn't believe it. I thought it had to be some kind of joke. I first laid eyes on it on my Facebook news feed, when a friend decided to post a funny story about it. Some people think it looks like one of those animated "now loading" computer icons.

I thought, "You've got to be kidding me! Really?"

I decided to Google it, and sure enough, there it was.

What's disconcerting to me is that the logo looks like a circumcision device, the closest one I could think of is the Mogen clamp. (Mogen went out of business because they couldn't afford the million dollar lawsuits as a result of the botched circumcisions it was responsible for.)

It looks like a circumcision clamp with the letter "C" on it, which I know stands for California, but I couldn't help associating it with the word "circumcision."

Which raises a few questions in my head.

Is this seriously for real?

If so, what were the creators thinking?

What was on their minds?

I'd like to know who is responsible for this disgusting imagery.

If this is real, the University of California needs to get rid of this logo at once.

That is, unless it wants to be known as the "University of Circumcision..."