Sunday, June 19, 2011

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

There has got to be something very tragic, and very wrong, with a society impaired by its own cultural blinders. It is very disconcerting that while human rights advocates fly half-way around the globe to decry the genital mutilation of girls and women, the very same people display a willful ignorance to the genital mutilation of boys in their own countries. While their cameras faithfully bring back images of girls being restrained as they have part of their genitals forcibly cut off, they somehow fail to capture images of the boys who are enduring the same in the very same countries.

Every so often, we'll see pictures of the forced genital cutting of boys in the media, however the tone in presentation is different. While the presentation of the images of forced female genital cutting encourage an audience to deplore the actions depicted, the presentation of the images of forced male genital cutting encourage an audience to accept what they see in the scope of "cultural relativism." "Horror and torture" for girls and women, "the preservation of age-old coming-of-age tradition" in boys. Why the sexist double-think?

It is a glaringly obvious inconsistency to defend the forced genital cutting of one sex, but condemn it in the other, yet when advocates of human rights point out this inconsistency, we are often met with hostility. "How dare you compare male and female circumcision," retort some, especially those defending male infant circumcision, "they're not the same thing!" This is said in a matter-of-fact tone, as if these claims were immediately self-evident.

I must ask, on what are they basing these assertions? Of the people that make these claims, how many of them have actually witnessed a male circumcision, let alone a female one? Can these claims actually be substantiated, or do they expect us to take their word for it at face value? What double-think are they using to condemn the abuse of female children, while defending the abuse of male children?

Girls remember, boys don't
It is often said that female circumcision is worse because it is performed at an age when the girl will be old enough to remember.

Girl "receives" sunat, at a "free" circumcision event in Bandung, Indonesia, west of Java.

In people's minds, male circumcision is justified, because to their knowledge, it is performed in babies, when boys will be less likely to remember the pain and trauma. But are these same people aware that in other cultures, boys are circumcised at older ages? What is their reaction in these cases?

In the Philippines circumcision is a rite of passage known as "tuli." Most males undergo "tuli" as preteens, particularly during their school summer break from March to May. Here, boys in Marikina, east of Manila,  "receive" their "free" circumcisions.

Male circumcision is a religious ritual
The forced circumcision of boys is often defended as a "religious tradition." This argument doesn't seem to hold when defending the forced circumcision of girls, however. For better or for worse, the circumcision of girls is ALSO seen as a "religious tradition," and in some cases, it is seen as a religious duty.

Kurdish girl being circumcised

The image above is horrific. Most would decry what is being depicted here as child abuse, and rightly so. But would this be the same reaction if the sex of the child in this picture were different?

Muslim boy being circumcised

In Islamic tradition, boys are traditionally circumcised at older ages. Does this picture of a Muslim boy being circumcised rouse the same horror and disgust as the picture before? Why? Why not? What is the mental reasoning of why what is happening in these pictures is not the exact same thing?

What's being compared?
When people say "female circumcision is worse," what are they actually saying? What are they comparing male infant circumcision to? In order to sensationalize female genital cutting, but downplay male genital cutting, advocates of circumcision always compare the circumcision of babies to the infibulation of women. The fact of the matter is that there are actually quite a few variations of female circumcision. The kind of female circumcision most people know, where all external genitalia is removed and the vaginal opening is stitched up, known as Pharaonic circumcision or infibulation, is actually the worst kind of female genital cutting, and it accounts for only 15% of cases globally. Even the World Health Organization acknowledges that there are many kinds of female circumcision, and not every kind removes the clitoris. Would we be more accepting of the kind of female genital cutting that was equivalent to or less severe than male infant circumcision?

In Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, the Islamic circumcision ritual for girls ranges from rubbing turmeric on the genitals, to pricking the clitoris to draw a symbolic drop of blood. In other instances, the procedure is more invasive, involving what WHO classifies as “Type I” female genital mutilation, defined as excision of the clitoral hood, called the prepuce, with or without incision of the clitoris itself. The amount of flesh removed, if any, is described by circumcisers as being "the size of a quarter-grain of rice, a guava seed, a bean, the tip of a leaf, the head of a needle." They use a small pair of sterilized scissors to cut a piece of the clitoral prepuce "about the size of a nail clipping." In some areas, they do cut the clitoris itself. In these countries, surveys show that over 95% of the female population undergoes some sort of genital cutting procedure, and the women seem to be doing fine.

In Indonesia, an infant girl undergoes "sunat" to fulfill religious and cultural tradition.

Not too far away, an infant boy undergoes circumcision for precisely the same reasons.
(Notice the mother: "Shh! Quiet!")

It is only through sexist double-think that we allow ourselves to feel disgust for only one of these pictures.

There may readers that delude themselves yet. Their minds will simply refuse to allow for male and female circumcision to connect. Groping for an alibi to keep them separate, and groping for reasons to continue to justify one while condemning the other, they cling to whatever they can find.

The reasoning may go something like this:
"Well, it may be true that boys in other cultures suffer, but at least where I come from, boys are circumcised at hospitals, in sterile environments, with clean utensils, by professionals, and local anesthetic. They won't remember anything because they're circumcised as babies."

Perhaps a boy circumcised as a newborn may not remember his circumcision. But is pain and whether or not it is remembered really the problem? Could we make the forced female genital cutting of girls more acceptable if it happened at hospitals in sterile environments with pristine utensils by the most caring of professionals? Would female circumcision be more acceptable if it were performed in a baby girl, when she would be least likely to remember? Or would it still be child abuse?

Because it is precisely what is happening right here:

A baby in South-East Asia undergoes "sunat"
Original Text: "It happens so fast, with a bismillah and a snip,
a little bit blood and that's it, Zahra dah sunat!
She didn't cry even a drop, in fact giggling2 lagi.
I guess it wasn't painful for her, alhamdulillahh.."

The slit clitoris if you can find it (on the lower blade)

You can read the whole thing here:
Another blog:
And a parenting forum here:

The following is an excerpt from a parenting forum in South-East Asia (the last link above). If you asked me, it reads just like something right out of CafeMom, but regarding girls instead of boys. I've underlined the parts that jump out at me:

A_LIM: Have you Sunat your girls?
My husband is Malay and I am expecting a girl. My husband said he wants our girl to be sunat . What does this involve? and where can I do it? I have heard of male circumcision and my two boys from a previous marriage who have been circumcised. But I have never heard of female circumcision? he also said I should consider doing myself is that possible at my age?

Like your thoughts

NursMama: Re: Have you Sunat your girls?
yah... i also dont know how to explain how its done although i witnessed both my gals' procedures myself both done at different clinics by female Muslim doctors...

dont think it's like the cutting for boys.... it's more minimal.... baby can recover by the next day?

as for yourself..... errrrrrmmm... i'm not sure.... you might wanna ask the doctors wther its ok or not? i can give you the clinics address/no if you want

Ros0818: Re: Have you Sunat your girls?
hi hi
Yup, i brought my girl to d same doc; Dr Elly Sabrinadont worry. It will be very fast & quick!
It's done within a few seconds...  I brought my baby der when she's about 2mths old. Doc will then give you a cream to apply on your baby. My girl recovers very fast. She gave a quick shriek during the process but after that she's fine. She never even cry after that. you can just give the doctor a call if you want to find out more.

nora23: Re: Have you Sunat your girls?
Went to Dr Balkis at Bedok. My 1st gal was then 6 mths old. It was very fast and only a pint of blood. My gal didnt cry and everything was per normal seconds after e sunat. Planning to bring my 2nd gal when she is 6 mths too.

In sunat process, nothin is done on e clitoris. Only a small part of e clitorial HOOD is snipped. The Dr even showed me e snipped hood, very very tiny fraction.

As for adult female muslim convert, I dont think its necessary to sunat. But its not wrong for you to do it either. Its best you consult muslim female doctors on e procedures and healing.

A_LIM: Re: Have you Sunat your girls?
Thanks all.

I actually decided to go for Sunat. It is available for adults, so I thought I would go before I do it to my daughter. I think I will be in a better position to know if it is ok for her after my surgery. My hubby is also happy Im doing it.

They told me it will take about 15 - 20 mins. They did not explain fully what they intended to do, but they said something about cutting the hood of my clitoris, and said they would not touch the clitoris

Has anyone been through this as an adult or young girl?

haffa: Re: Have you Sunat your girls?
Hello mummies...

Auni had her sunat done last Tuesday. I brought her to Dr Adidah's Clinic located in Tampines. I didn't see what the doc did coz didn't have the heart to but my sister saw through the whole procedure which took about 5mins. Auni cried a bit only but i felt sorry for her . I was so glad it was over..phew.

A_LIM: Re: Have you Sunat your girls?
Did sunat a week ago. Actually very mild. They basically removed about a third of your hood and leave the clitoris in tact. So basically your clitoris is exposed rather than covered by the hood. No pain and recovered in under a week.

Thanks for everyone for there help

tika: Re: Have you Sunat your girls?
yup stonston yer right. different families, different customs. there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I guess i failed to see to some Muslim families, customs are just as important as religion. To each his own aye.

Does any of this sound familiar? This is quite a contrast to the horror I am told female circumcision is supposed to be. There's not a doubt in my mind that if I showed this to parents discussing their son's circumcisions in an American forum, these same parents would be horrified. Their cultural blinders would not allow them to consider that there is anything wrong with what they have allowed to happen to their own children. It is only through carefully engineered double-think that we allow ourselves to justify what happens to boys in our own culture, while condemning what happens to girls in other cultures.

So in the end, what is it?
What is it that makes female circumcision "worse" and "not comparable" to male circumcision?

Some may yet expound:
"Female circumcision is different from male circumcision, because it is meant to subjugate women and control their sexualities."

Closer inspection reveals that in our culture, this was precisely the reason it was done to boys.

"...with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is... the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible...
The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision...
...violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened." ~Rabbi Moses Maimonides

"A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision...The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind... In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement." ~Dr. John Harvey Kellogg

But in the end, is "intention" what defines abuse? Because for better or for worse, just like parents who circumcise their boys, parents who circumcise their daughters have the best of intentions.

Yet others may say:
"Female circumcision completely eliminates a woman’s ability to orgasm."

Closer investigation reveals that women who have undergone infibulation, which is the worst kind of female genital cutting, are still able to orgasm:

To sensationalize female circumcision, others will say:
"In Africa, women are often circumcised unsanitary conditions, with crude materials such as rusty blades or glass shards. They are performed by amateurs, they are left with impaired sexualities and sometimes they bleed to death."

But they will fail to mention that in Africa, boys and men endure the same thing. They will fail to mention that every year, scores of men bleed to death, or commit suicide, because their penises fail to heal properly and fall off due to gangrene. Some men live the rest of their lives with stumps where their penises used to be. Oh, but never mind them. It's a time-honored right of passage, and circumcision has been proven to protect against disease. Well... at least they won't get any more STDs, right?

Finally, some will say:
"Studies show male circumcision could have health benefits. The same is not true for female circumcision."

But what if it were? At least on the surface, advocates of male infant circumcision seem to care about a myriad of "health benefits." But let's examine this line of thinking further: what if female genital cutting offered the same "benefits?" Would we consider them? What if "studies showed" that removing a girl's clitoral hood and "redundant labia," could "help prevent HIV transmission?"

Because there are few studies that show precisely this:

"Female circumcision results in a reduction of infections resulting from microbes gathering under the hood of the clitoris"
"Attacks of herpes and genital ulcers are less severe and less harmful with women who have been circumcised"

How supportive would we be of further "research" into the matter? What would we think if the National Institutes of Health, Johns Hopkins, the CDC etc., funded "research" in female genital cutting in Africa? What about countries where female circumcision isn't as "severe?"

Is there a number of "potential medical benefits" that would ever cause us to re-consider female circumcision? Would there ever be enough studies to convince us to submit our daughters to have part of their genitals removed? How much would be acceptable for us to remove from our daughter’s genitals? What if "studies showed" that female circumcision could be performed without removing the clitoris or a woman's ability to orgasm? What if all that was removed were a little "flap of skin" 10x smaller than the foreskin? What if it were proven to be "cleaner" and cut back on the fish smell? What if "studies showed" that circumcising your daughter "reduced the risk" of prostate cancer in her male partner? Would we consider it then?

But let's ask a different question, would circumcision advocates be interested in finding alternatives to circumcision? Would they support research in finding alternative ways to provide the same "medical benefits" as male circumcision? What if doctors and scientists announced “We have great news! This new vaccine offers the same protections as circumcision and more! Now we don't have to circumcise babies anymore!" How would circumcision advocates react? Would they let out a sigh of relief, or would they panic? Would they gladly abandon the practice? Or would they scramble looking for other "reasons" to do it? The answers to these questions would speak volumes.

The fact of the matter is that neither the allegations of "medical benefits" nor the production of numerous "studies" would never be enough to justify the forced genital cutting of girls. Why this double-standard when it comes to the circumcision of boys? There are better, more effective, less invasive ways to treat and prevent disease. Instead of investigating these, instead of seeking to make the practice of forcibly cutting off part of a healthy, non-consenting boy's penis obsolete, why are we spending millions of dollars on "studies" to find ways to make the practice a requirement?

So in the end, which do you cut?
In the fetus, both male and female genitals develop from the same genital tubercle.
On the left is a male fetus, on the right a female.

Who is the monster?
On the left, a ritual circumciser of boys,
on the right, a ritual circumciser of girls,
both of them proudly displaying the tools of their trade.

Which child gets your sympathy?
A girl and a boy as they undergo ritual circumcision.

And does age really change anything?

Do we actually care about any "medical benefits?" Or is that merely an empty excuse? Is pain and whether it could be remembered or not really the problem? Isn't the principle of taking a healthy, non-consenting child and cutting off part of that child's genitals, the exact same principle?

Circumcision is child abuse. No matter what age, no matter what sex.

The New York Times wrote an excellent article on the kind of female circumcision performed in Indonesia, "A Cutting Tradition." Read the article here:


  1. A very powerful selection of photos. Very well done!

    1. Good points, it should not be forced. I wasn't, I decided at age 19 to have it done. didn't really change much of anything jacked off less and stopped getting uti's.

    2. It will be my sons choice at whatever age, I do remember as a child wanting to be like the other boys and would of gladly had it done. its really not that bad if you have kids you will see the same agony on their faces when they get shots at the doctor's that child abuse too.

    3. We are not against adult men choosing whatever they want for themselves. I do question your motives; did you get circumcised out of medical necessity, or because you wanted to conform?

      "How many legs does a dog have, if you called it's tail a leg? 4. Because calling a dog's tail a leg, doesn't make it one." ~Abraham Lincoln

      Your vaccine argument is based on a dubious premise; that circumcision is actually comparable to a vaccine.

      There are great differences between circumcision and vaccination. Vaccination does not remove part of your body for example. The protective effect is also scientifically demonstrable at the molecular level. A vaccine makes observable changes in the immune system, strengthening it against pathogens that cause disease; circumcision has no effect on the immune system whatsoever.

      Not to mention that while no respected medical organization recommends the circumcision of infants, not even the AAP, all of them recommend vaccination.

      We are not against the circumcision of children, when and if there is clear and valid medical indication for which there is no non-surgical alternative.

      Let it remain clear, that there is simply not a single virus that circumcision immunizes against. Circumcision fails to prevent STDs, which is why, in the end, circumcised males have to wear condoms. There is not a single doctor or "researcher" that can refute this simple fact.

      I'm not sure about you, but as for me, the less jabs, the less surgery my child has to endure, the better.

      Unless the child is suffering an adverse condition that cannot be remedied any other way, how he wants to have his penis should be his choice. Circumcising a healthy, non-consenting minor is child abuse, not to mention medical fraud.

  2. oh god. i cant bear it. powerful.

  3. heartbreaking but so true. this information is so needed! thanks for posting

  4. Nice job of in your face journalism Joseph!

  5. This is a nice article to which I can point people who make that 'There is no comparison!' appeal.

    With regard to older boys being circumcised, you might find some of the statistics given here useful; it's very likely that most of the male circumcisions performed in the world are indeed performed on completely healthy adolescents.

    Let me know if you can't read that table.

  6. Joseph this is a really very good summary. The pictures say it all really but it's important to emphasise that the most common target of female cutting is the clitoral prepuce aka her foreskin.

  7. Oh, well done! All the things I ramble about, organized & summarized beautifully. Now I can just post a link & quote. :P

    Joe, that was magnificent.

  8. All of the pictures are disturbing, Maybe I am naive but I don't understand the author constantly asking which is worse or who has my sympathy? They are all terrible and my heart breaks for each and every child who has been circumcised without consent.

  9. Momma, I keep asking because even after all of this, there -will- be people who are simply that dense, or willfully myopic, and who will leave this article thinking no different.

    May one day boys and girls enjoy equal rights...

  10. One textual note: When you use the word 'forcefully', I think you actually mean 'forcibly'. You do this in 2 places here.

  11. Very good work!!
    Circumcision is a crime, a force against humans basic rights to body's integrity. People from the world that give support or do this practise must to think and reflect about the real value of that, its not necessary. The pain, the shock, the violence common used to do that is enough. I can't get see it without a disgusting feeling. Nothing has to be power with my or your body. We have protect children not mutilate them. Religion and tradition,must be stopped now!
    One more time, thanks for the text. :-)

  12. Excellent work!!!!! Now if we could just get the right people to read it, maybe it would make a world of difference! It is a frustrating process.

  13. Oh this makes my chest feel heavy. :( I know it is likely because I am a mom of boys & because I can picture my own children in those images & because I know that NO ONE Is truly fighting to protect them like I am, that it is actually the pictures of the boys that i do find harder. The idea that this could STILL happen to them. It actually scares me enough that I have chosen guardians (in the event that Dh & I would ever need one) that I KNOW would not circ my children & would fight as hard as I would to find a foreskin friendly Dr should anyone ever suggest they "need" one. I am always saddened when people say there is no comparison. I was criticized highly in an online debate when I suggested that the AAP should change their stance maybe on FGM to include bloodletting for girls. This was a few years ago now & there was some hubub that someone was introducing a concept of a pin prick or slight burning of the hood of the clitoris to "fulfill" any religious or cultural obligation some parents feel while leaving the female genitals almost completely intact. I said I thought it was discrimination to leave male circ legal for infants & not allow this procedure for girls. I do NOT wish any child to have their genitals harmed - I had hoped people would SEE how hypocritical it is. Some did - many just thought I was insane. It goes to show how far that divide is & how much work it will take to get people to wake up to this.

  14. Great!
    As a CHILD ABUSE CPS SOCIAL WORKER for eleven years,I never had a case of worst abuse than the mutilation and cutting and crushing of a newborns foreskin,blood vessels and nerves while the boy screams in agony!
    If this isn't child abuse,what is??
    What people do in the Name of Religion and Medicine,SHAME,SHAME,SHAME!!

  15. I will never, ever, EVER understand why people do not see this for what it is. I lay the blame at the feet of America's medical establishment--they are the ones who have legitimized the sexual mutilation of non consenting males. They have made it seem like a routine, sterile, no big deal procedure. WHY? Hhhhhmmmmmmm Could be that recognizing it for what it is will force them to see themselves for what *they* are--sexually mutilated. Could be that circumcision is very profitable for them. I don't understand why FGM makes people so furious and willing to stand up, and MGM is just...meh, who cares.

    1. What is never discussed is the financial impact that the elimination of male genital
      alterations would have on the industry. Being a Billion dollar industry, Hospitals make around $400 to $500 for each procedure. They make millions when complications arise, insurance covers whatever the costs are to repair mistakes. But the big money is made when the amputated tissue is sold to cosmetic companies like Mary Kay and Revlon, some sell for up to $10,000 each, while most average between 2 to $500 apiece. Male genital mutilation or the altering of boys genitals without their consent, or circumcision, is a money making procedure that is looking for a future ailment to keep its enforcement today.

  16. Great work, Joseph, and I am very thankful that I was given a link to here.
    I have recently been shocked to find a growing number of people promoting "cosmetic female genital surgeries". These surgery promoters are promising to enhance the person's appearance, confidence and even minimize the challenges of maintaining their hygiene. And if you aren't already aware of this, they DO REMOVE TISSUE from the patients genitalia! Each new time I discover another promoter of such, I am appalled. If this becomes idealized, We'll be facing more than just male circumcision...
    This same "cosmetic female genital surgery" is more popular in wealthier societies than in any other places.
    I have found many online question/ answer sites that are presenting questions from teenage females regarding their interest in having a "Labia-plasty". WHAT!!! Where in the world do these ideas get into a teen girl's mind?!!! If you doubt me, just do a few searches on the web for labia reduction, labia plasty, labia surgery... just to get started.
    I just dropped "labia plasty" into the search box at yahooanswers and right there was a "14yr old girl" posting a question on that subject!
    If you can bear it, search for clitoral reduction, clitoral plasty, clitoral surgery.
    From what I see, if people don't get this idea "that it's ok or better to cut our genitals" out of there gullible childish minds, then we are in for a tough battle at ending FGM, FGC, MGM, MGC, circumcision & what ever else people are going to call this crude societal behavior.

  17. You should also include this article in the section about health benefits:

  18. Pictures can help get people out of their heads and see with their hearts.

    I would like to add something that I saw in a forum -
    "If it aint child abuse, then what is?"

    I don't know of anything worse you can legally do to a child.

  19. Anyone who circumsizes a female should be drawn and quartered--very slowly! Also the parents who permit it should enjoy the same painful demise.

  20. I also feel that the circumcision of little boys is child abuse. I never had to consider the issue of circumcision, because I have only given birth to a female child. When I first learned about "intactivists", it really grieved me to hear about what I had formerly, casually accepted.

    Even though I never had a child circumcised, I couldn't completely free myself from guilt. I did have my daughter's ears pierced when she was 3 months old. It never occurred to me that I could have left it to her to decide whether she wanted it at some point in the future. It was just our tradition. Girls get their ears pierced at 3 months old and that was that. After all, the argument went, she'd be too young to remember the pain.

    Of course, I was familiar with arguments against female circumcision and thought it was understandable for people to fight to end the practice. But male circumcision is so accepted in this country (USA) that I didn't even think that there might be some males who were left feeling violated by the procedure. Now that I have heard the experiences of some of these men, I see no reason why it should be treated any differently from female circumcision.

    I think I might use a different term for what sort of bigotry is involved, because I think it's more than just sexism involved the way that people respond to the circumcision of girls or boys.

  21. Great article, needs a little proofreading, But So Awesome!

  22. Pictures they say are worth a thousand words. In this case that is true.

  23. I have been circumcised, our religion tells men shall perform circumcision. We felt comfortable. It hurt? But medical technology now everything is not going to feel painful. But it's the photos that scary. Their children, they cry, but after doing so they are happy and comfortable, they are proud to be able to run the religious orders. But for those who do not will regret it for life. We feel comfortable there was no child abuse. How do you say child abuse. And I would say you have insulted our religion.

    1. The same could be said for female circumcision.

      Some people feel their religion tells them that females will be circumcised. They feel comfortable. I'm sure they're well aware of the pain.

      What if we had the medical technology so female circumcision would not be "painful?" Would it be justified then? Is pain really the issue here?

      Yes, most women are happy and comfortable after their circumcisions, and they are proud to be able to follow "religious orders." Those who do not, some regret it, because they are social outcasts where they live.

      Female circumcision is too, like male circumcision, "age old tradition," practiced for thousands of years, "since time immemorial." And yet, we don't bite our tongues to call it the genital mutilation that it is.

      The people who continue to cut little girls don't believe it's "child abuse" either. Yes, do we dare continue to call it child abuse anyway?

      Would we step away quietly if they told us we have "insulted their religion?"

      I'm sorry, jomlosambas, but "it's my religion" is no longer the get-out-of-jail-free card it used to be. At some point the rights of the child begin.

      Even religion has limitations, and there is no better example of this than female circumcision.

      "Religious freedom" seems to work only in your own special case. You sir, engage in special pleading.

      I oppose the forced genital cutting of anyone, at any age, no matter what sex, no matter what race, no matter what religion.

      In children, it is nothing less than assault, battery, mutilation and child abuse.

  24. what the hell is wrong with you people circumcision is just taking off the fore skin that covers your dick with some people if you don't cut it off it just falls off any way open a book before you post pic's like this besides its not like you would remember it happening since it is so pose to be done when you are a baby not 1/2 past adult hood

    1. "what the hell is wrong with you people circumcision is just taking off the fore skin that covers your dick"

      Yes, I'm sure that's "all it is." If that's what you want to do, you go right ahead.

      Cutting off part of another person's dick is mutilation and a violation of basic human rights.

      "with some people if you don't cut it off it just falls off any way"

      How many people? Citation please?

      "open a book before you post pic's like this"


      "besides its not like you would remember it happening since it is so pose to be done when you are a baby not 1/2 past adult hood"

      Yes. I'm sure if you cut a girl as a baby (Shown in this post. Did you actually read it?), it would be perfectly justified. You know? Cuz a baby girl can't remember? Hah hah hah...

      Good luck trying to fool yourself dude... Sorry to tell you you're missing part of your dick, but you are... Cheers...

  25. Lol @ that guy telling you to open a book when he thinks a foreskin would fall off if it wasn't cut off. I'm sorry but I can't help laughing at such ignorance of basic human anatomy. I love your article and I can't understand anybody who reads stuff like this and still doesn't get the double standard. Thank you for your tireless advocacy for these poor mutilated boys. I look forward to the day when nobody feels it's ok to cut the genitals of a child without their consent.

    1. We should not be making this any kind of battle of the sexes! It's all disgustingly, got ruby wrong - boy or girl regardless.

      And as for these paedos who suck the child's penis as part of the ritual......ugh ....words fail me.

  26. This practice is utterly barbaric sadistic mutilation of innocent children and its practice should be made illegal world wide, regardless of sex the child is. It is blatant child abuse, stirred with deep ignorant belief on the parent's behalf. Nothing of this practice can ever be justified where these children are mutilated and robbed of their birthright against their will (even if they are heavily persuaded or frightened if they do not have the procedure done - by their ignorant parents). There is virtually no medical reasons for this practice's legitimacy ('they' like to suggest there are - probably to keep them in business), and only in rare medical cases proved by respective scientists, should it only be prescribed where not conducting this practice will actually physiologically harm the child (again rare cases!). Children are born out of love aren't they ? ... so why do some parents insist on mutilating them ?.

  27. I have nothing against circumcision but I also have nothing against those wanting tattoos or body piercings. What I have a beef with is that the parents are given the right to choose what will permanently be done to their child. I was circumcised as a "routine" procedure in Denver. My boy was not circumcised. I figure if he wants or needs it done, it will have to be his decision.

    If cosmetic effect is the only reason it's done, why don't we place our favorite tattoos right up against the thigh. He/she will thank us for it later in life for doing it now. Right? Right.

    The issue is a male infant is born. The question comes to the parents: Would you like him circumcised? Why the question? Why are parents even put in that situation? That "option" makes the newborn male seem like he comes equipped with leather seats, preordered fashion hubcaps, and everything you choose as a parent. He is a human being for Pete's sake!! That option should not exist unless there is a true medical necessity!

  28. Thank you for this excellent article, and for speaking the truth about this horrible topic. I am with you in the fight for equality for all genders to be protected from genital mutilation.

  29. I mean there are many people who also think vaccinations are also child abuse, I do. Guess depends on each person's definition. Male circumcision is not seen as child abuse by many people and is legal everywhere...I think that a child should decide for everything.

    1. The difference is that while vaccines are recommended by every respected medical organization, not a single medical organization recommends male infant circumcision.

      Additionally, while vaccines are proven to strengthen the immune system against pathogens that cause disease, circumcision does not affect the immune system in any way whatsoever.

      Not to mention that while circumcision removes a piece of flesh from a person's penis (As big as 3x5 inches in an adult male), vaccines don't remove anything, leaving a person's body intact.

      Interesting you say that male circumcision is not seen as child abuse by many people; people who circumcise girls and women don't think it is abuse either. It's why they do it.

      In those countries where female circumcision is performed, the majority of people don't think there's anything wrong with it. It's legal there too.

      Up until 1996, FGM was actually "legal" in the US as well.

      At one point, most people didn't think there was anything with slavery either. Those who kept slaves didn't think there was anything wrong. Those who want to continue to do something always think that there's nothing wrong with what they do, and they try to find ways here and there to justify themselves.

      When something is an abusive basic human rights violations, how many people don't see it as abuse, and whether or not it's "legal" is irrelevant.

    2. Well, that's because some babies are premature or they are too weak so they can't recommend it to every baby since they would get sued but male circumcision is legal in most countries....which is same for vaccinations so opens your eyes really.

      Also, babies die from vaccinations due to reactions but vaccinations make much bigger bucks and it's a bigger business so they can easily keep it silent. People should really look into that business. It's also a permanent effect on the body even if they don't remove some tissue. I mean they even remove the teeth in some kids which shocks me. I think everything done to a baby without their consent is abuse.

      Slavery was not even that bad compared, yes, they were prisoners for most of their lives but look past that. I'm glad you brought that up.

    3. In the case of the AAP, they reviewed all the available medical literature and their conclusion was that "the benefits aren't great enough" to recommend.

      You're right about one thing; doctors don't want to get sued for malpractice or medical fraud. This is why they sneakily shirk their responsibility and place it on parents.

      It must be pointed out here, that while the AAP, one of the most respected medical organizations on the planet, reviewed the medical literature on the matter and couldn't bring themselves to recommend it based on that extensive review, somehow, lay parents are expected to come up with a more reasonable conclusion.

      In the intactivist movement, there exist people of all walks of life. Some people have strong opinions against vaccines, others are actually quite in favor. The reason I can't compare the two is because circumcision actually removes a large piece of flesh. Stretched out, that piece of flesh and skin measures about 3x5 inches in an adult male. How much skin would be acceptable to remove in a baby girl?

      Oh slavery wasn't that bad, no... Black people were just treated worse than livestock, even being forced to birth children to be sold as such... It was all "legal" too...

      I brought it up as an example to show that just because something is "legal" doesn't mean it's right.

      I reiterate; up until 1996 female genital cutting was quite legal. Blue Shield paid for it too.

    4. Incidentally, can you give me a list of elective, non-medical surgery parents can command doctors to perform on their children on a whim, without medical or clinical indication?

      You'll notice that, at least in America, the list isn't very long.

      In any other case, reaping profit from performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud.

  30. AAP can't recommend to every baby though. There are babies who are too weak that's why they leave the choice up to parents with "benefits outweigh risks".

    I just wanted to compare the two scince babies can die from both as well as vaccines are done without consent. Injecting chemicals inside the body. What if they don't want that when they grow up?

    I tried to find studies on the 3x5 but couldn't, maybe hidden from us.

    I mean it's 2017 and still legal in most countries. Some people have theories that Jewish people control everything but I find that racist and could be based on hate.

    1. It sounds like you don't understand the whole reason the AAP releases statements on circumcision from time to time, and you haven't read their review.

      No, they didn't shy away from recommendation because "there are babies who are too weak that's why they leave the choice up to parents." Their exact words were "the benefits are not great enough."

      Vaccines are recommended by every respected medical organization in the world, because the evidence is overwhelming, unlike circumcision.

      You can't compare male circumcision to vaccines. You're comparing apples to oranges.

      Vaccines don't remove a chunk of your genitals. Vaccines actually strengthen a person's immune system against pathogens that cause disease. Vaccines are actually recommended by every respected medical organization.

      Unlike male infant circumcision, which does not, cannot immunize a person against anything, removes a part of a person's genitals, changing the mechanics of it for life, and is not recommended by any respected medical organization.

      I don't think you need a "study" to measure the size of a person's foreskin. It's simply a matter of measuring the external foreskin all the way up until just past the glans penis, and then double that, since the foreskin is a double-layer of skin. Stretched out, a foreskin is about 3x5 inches. This, of course varies from man to man, as penises are different shapes and sizes.

      In a child, the size of a severed foreskin will of course be a few centimeters, but it seems people have a tendency to forget that children grow up and become men, and penises, along with their foreskins grow too.

      Yes, it's 2017 and it's still "legal" in most countries, but as I have shown with the slavery example, "legality" is kind of irrelevant. Female circumcision was "still legal" in this country up until 1996, and some insurance companies like Blue Shield paid for it.

    2. Circumcision advocates try every trick in the book to vilify intactivists. A common cheap shot is to try and peg us as being "anti-Semitic." There are a few reasons why this is baseless ad hominem.

      1. Circumcision would have to be a uniquely Jewish practice.

      Circumcision is also practiced by Muslims and African tribes. In America, it has become an ingrained custom, where 1.3 million babies are circumcised in hospitals as a matter of course. The great majority of those, something like 99.4%, are secular, non-Jewish circumcisions performed by doctors.

      2. Circumcision would have to be universal among Jewish.

      The fact is that a lot of Jews choose to forgo this practice. In Europe, it is estimated that as much as 40% of Jews have chosen to abandon the practice. A (male) person is Jewish by virtue of having a Jewish mother, so it is possible for uncircumcised males to still be "Jewish."

      3. Some of the most outspoken voices in our movement happen to be Jewish.

      I wrote a blog about this here:

    3. I want you to stop and think about your attempt at an an anti-Semite smear:

      Female circumcision is seen as an important, religious practice by many.

      In South East Asian countries, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei etc., it is seen as an Islamic requirement for both males and females to have part of the genitals removed.

      In many African tribes, female circumcision, as is male circumcision, is seen as important rite of passage.

      You'll notice that there doesn't seem to be any kind of "racist" or "anti-Muslim," or "anti-African" problem when decrying female genital cutting.

      It's only "racist" or "anti-Semitic," or what have you, to criticize male circumcision.

    4. I speak out against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors in any way, shape or form. I make no exception for "religion" nor "cultural practice" of any kind.

      In the US, only 0.6% of all circumcisions performed on infants are Jewish brisim.

      I oppose ALL of it.

      Thank you.

    5. I understand AAP and have read it many times, they can't recommend it to every single baby and they have listed everything and what they think. I checked it again today and they list "benefits outweigh risks" and that they cannot recommend it to every single baby so leave it to parents.

      I brought up vaccines because they are done without consent and has lifelong effect on the body as well as babies dying from it.

      The 40 percent of Jewish in Europe not practicing sounds incorrect. Is there a reliable source? I would actually love to see the source. I have many Jewish friends in Europe and I always see them practicing it, putting pictures and stating the importance of it.

      I actually do look at studies since that is the most honest way to register information.

    6. No, they can't recommend it because "the benefits are not great enough."

      It ought to be noted here that in the same breath they try to say that "the benefits outweigh the risks," but, that, at the same time, "the benefits are not great enough to recommend" it.

      Here it must be witnessed, that an entire medical organization can't bring itself to recommend the practice based on the existing body of medical literature, but, that, at the same time, somehow, lay parents are expected to come up with a more reasonable conclusion.

      The AAP can't bring itself speak against male infant circumcision because they have members who profit from the practice that they don't want to put in a tough spot.

      They put their onus on parents because they themselves don't want to be responsible.

      Vaccines can't compare with circumcision, which removes a whole chunk of flesh from a person's genitals.

      Unfortunately, I don't have a reliable source. *My* Jewish European friends tell me they didn't circumcise their children and that a great number of them have abandoned the practice.

      No, you only look at the "studies" that suit you.

      As already noted, the AAP conducted an extensive review of all the research, and in 2012, said that the "benefits of circumcision were not great enough" to recommend the practice.

      It sounds like you disagree with the AAP and the rest of modern medicine, and that is your right.

    7. I end this thread with my 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, present in all males at birth; 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 individuals 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 individuals, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents, and much less expect to be reimbursed.

      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.

  31. It's important to note that labia is not the same as foreskin, girls/women also have foreskin which is different from labia. For them, it's a small tissue (prepuce) that is near their clitoris. The clitoris and male glans are equivalent. There are even babies that are born without foreskin.

    1. Why?

      Why is this important?

      Is it more justifiable to cut off the pinky because it's not cutting off the entire hand?

      Would you advocate to remove the prepuce of the clitoris "because it's equivalent" to the male foreskin?

      I'm afraid the labia are akin to the foreskin, because they're just vestibular tissue that do nothing but gather smegma and odors.

      Yes some babies are not born with foreskin.

      Some women have longer and some women have shorter, almost negligible labia.

      What is your point?

      How is the forced removal of healthy tissue in ANY sex justified?

    2. I was noting basic anatomy differences. The labia is not equivalent to foreskin, I wanted to note that females also have prepuce.

    3. The labia is about the same as the foreskin, being vestibular skin that a female can live without and still function sexually etc..

      Yes, females also have a prepuce, equivalent to the male foreskin.

      Compared side-by-side, the male foreskin is a large chunk of flesh compared to the sliver of the female prepuce.

      You must also note that its removal is still called "mutilation" despite being its direct equivalent to the foreskin in males.

      See pictures for comparison here:

    4. Of course, this is irrelevant splitting of hairs:

      Forcibly cutting off ANYTHING from a healthy, non-consenting individual constitutes medical fraud, abuse, and a gross violation of basic human rights.

    5. But both being tissue does not mean they are same seeing as labia is different from prepuce. The male foreskin is not the same size but it is more equivalent to the female prepuce. A lot of babies undergo medical procedures though.

    6. No one made the claim that both tissues are exactly the same, merely similarly equivalent, as both the labia and the prepuce can be seen as "extra" and "disposable."

      The male foreskin is many times larger than the female prepuce. Therefore when you compare the equivalent removal in both sexes, male circumcision is more severe.

      I'm not sure what your point is, as you seem to defeat your own purpose in trying to minimize male infant circumcision.

      A more equivalent procedure to male infant circumcision would be the removal of the labia, as that constitutes more flesh than the mere sliver that the female prepuce is.

      Yes, a lot of babies undergo medical procedures, the key difference here being that, contrary to male infant circumcision, there is medical or clinical necessity.

    7. The question I keep asking, but you seem to keep studiously avoiding is, does it matter?

      When you are forcibly cutting off a normal, healthy piece of tissue from a healthy, non-consenting person, does it really matter what part it is, and/or whether it is not the equivalent in the opposite sex?

      I'll ask again, would you advocate for the forcible removal of the clitoral hood, because that's its direct equivalent in the male penis?

      You would be OK with that?

      If you would, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

      You are an advocate of child abuse and the gross violation of basic individual human rights.

    8. Well seeing as some people have made the claim that they are same, I wanted to just put out it out there that they are different.

      Removing labia at birth is also an impossible task. Something also being a bit larger does not mean they are not equivalent. Female prepuce is tiny yes hence why it is harder to remove.

      Now why would you say that? I already stated that I am not for circumcision for all babies. You also won't get people to listen to you if you say things like that, you can have your opinion but when you say things like that, it just shows me that you want to just call other people names. Never a good idea. I have seen other people say parents who vaccinate are also child abusers which I am against vaccines but I will never say that to parents.

    9. I will stay my question.

      Do you advocate for procedures that are equal to, or less severe than male infant circumcision?

      If you do, then you are a sympathizer for genital mutilation, and you picked the wrong blog to troll.

      You like splitting hairs, but it will do you no good here, as I oppose the forced genital cutting of ALL healthy, non-consenting persons regardless of sex or religious creed of their parents.

    10. I will post my mission statement one more time, just for good measure.

      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, present in all males at birth; 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 individuals 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 individuals, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents, and much less expect to be reimbursed.

      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.

    11. If you have any doubt about what this blog is about and what my cause is, read the above statement again.

      Have a nice day.

  32. There was one more thing I wanted to bring to my readers' attention:

    There is no other surgical procedure that the AAP sort of throws their hands up in the air and says "let the parents decide."

    There's no special "task force" on appendectomy, gall bladder removal, open heart surgery or any other surgery for that matter.

    Male infant circumcision is the one surgical procedure in which the AAP engages in special pleading for a number of reasons.

    As already mentioned, male infant circumcision has become very ingrained in American culture. So much that approx 1.3 million babies are circumcised a year. Such being the case, a great number of AAP members would be put in an awkward position would that the organization were to come out against this elective, non-medical practice.

    Additionally, male infant circumcision is a sensitive issue, because it also happens to be seen as a religious practice (there is no religious exemption for FGM as it is performed by Muslim sects and African tribes), and the AAP wants to avoid being labeled as religious persectutors.

    In particular, Jewish groups are ready to call anyone who dares speak out against the practice, which they see as divine commandment, an "anti-Semite."

    So the AAP must tread lightly to avoid lawsuits from angry men, parents, and accusations that thy are out to persecute religions that practice male infant circumcision.

    It is not a mere matter of being enough "research" that says this or that about the practice. Otherwise the AAP would take a firm stance, as they do with all other surgery, because in their own words, "the benefits of circumcision aren't great enough."

    Meanwhile, babies are infected with herpes, MRSA, gangrene or other infections, lose part or all of their penises, suffer hemorrhage complications and even die.

    I reiterate; while the AAP takes a firm pontificative stance on most everything else, male circumcision is the only surgical procedure on which they wring their hands and deliberate, shirking and putting the onus of responsibility on parents.

  33. You can be against it, nobody is trying to change your mind or your thoughts here. Everyone is free to think whatever they want. I am only stating what AAP has stated where they said benefits outweigh risks, which is the newer version and that many countries have it as a legal non-mutilation practice. It's important to know that so you can have it as backup info in case want to contact them and see how it is viewed by different people.

    I did not mean it came from me. I am also not for circumcision of everyone. I am also against many medicines and vaccines since babies don't consent and they can die, many babies have allergy reactions. However, I look for reliable studies, which is not about suiting me but for me to research. Most Jewish people have not given up on circumcision. I am sure there are some who have though, especially in circles against circumcision.

    1. The AAP tried to say in their last statement that "the benefits outweighs the risks." Ultimately, they couldn't commit to a recommendation because, from the same 2012 statement, "the benefits are not great enough."

      To reiterate, somehow parents are expected to come up with a more reasonable conclusion.

      You keep trying to put male infant circumcision in the same category as a vaccine. Not even the AAP does that. Nice try though.

      I ask, is there a "right" amount of "research" that would ever cause you to advocate for forced female circumcision?

      I have never made the claim that Jews have abandoned male infant circumcision; what I have said is that circumcision is not a uniquely Jewish practice, that it is not universal amongst all Jews, and that there are even Jewish voices from within our movement.

      I have spoken with many Jewish advocates of genital integrity who tell me that circumcision is often abandoned by Jews in Europe and South America.

      Obviously more Orthodox Jews cling to the practice, but there is a large number of Jews who advocate choice, genital integrity and self-autonomy for all. Some have adopted and are preaching a non-invasive naming ceremony called "Brit Shalom."

      I'm not trying to say this is widespread, because it's not. I'm just saying that there is a movement against circumcision from within Jewish communities. (Thank goodness.)

    2. There is no way they can recommend it to every baby, such as a baby who is premature. That baby would most likely not make it. What they say is "benefits outweigh the risks" and that they cannot recommend it to every baby which is similar to what other countries say.

      Of course it's not just a Jewish practice but it is still a common practice in Jews around the world. Many Jewish celebrities proudly say they circumcised their child. Many Jewish communities don't view Brit Shalom as being accepted except for those against the procedure who make it clear. I also didn't mean it's just in Jewish people seeing as many non-Jewish people also practice but I meant more so where it is well known.

    3. But that's not the reason they stopped themselves from recommending it, Tenu. In their policy, it says quite clearly that the reason they could not bring themselves to do it was because "the benefits," which supposedly "outweigh the risks," aren't great enough.

      Oddly enough, they recommend vaccines for everyone.

      Isn't it strange...

      Let me make it clear again for you; perhaps I lack the articulation skills:

      1. Circumcision is not unique to Judaism. The great majority of circumcised males in this country are not Jewish.

      2. Circumcision is not universal among Jews; while those who lean to the orthodox way of doing things still cling to male infant circumcision, there are also Jews who have abandoned the practice. If my Jewish friends from Europe and South America are to be believed, a great number of Jews there don't circumcise their boys. Jews clinging to circumcision tends to be an American and maybe even British thing.

      3. Some Jews go as far as speaking out against the practice, and are some of the most outspoken people in our movement.

      I write more extensively about this here:

  34. So they can't recommend it to every baby seeing that it is not life or death situation, they just cannot recommend it to every baby. If they did they would have to recommend it to a baby with heart complications who is too weak to undergo circumcision.

    Who said it is only unique to Jewish people? I never did.

    I said circumcision is important for Jewish people and it is, most Jewish people around the world practice it. There are many Jewish people in Eastern Europe as well and it is very important for them. It's a huge part of their culture based on common knowledge. I never said every single Jewish person. We cannot just go on your personal friends who like you, are in a circle who also probably are against circumcision. I meant more so worldwide and common understanding of their culture.


    1. Again, that's not the reason the AAP stops short of a recommendation. They do so because, as they say in their own statement, "the benefits of circumcision are not great enough."

      You fail to address, or deliberately ignore that, while they don't recommend circumcision for all babies, they do recommend vaccines for all children, even the ones that, as you yourself bring up, might react badly from them.

      And, by the way, doctors will circumcise babies with heart complications anyway. When the babies die, they blame the heart condition.

      When babies die from circumcision, doctors always scramble to blame everything except the obvious; the fact the child endured elective, non-medical procedure with known risks.

    2. Attempts to call intactivists "anti-Semites" necessarily rely on the three assumptions I've mentioned.

      I bring them up to address your veiled attempt at pulling the anti-Semite card above.

      Yes, I understand that circumcision is important for fervent orthodox adherents of Judaism.

      No, circumcision is *not* universal amongst all Jews, though I admit that it is still common for the majority of Jews around the world to have their male infants circumcised.

      Yes, some of the most outspoken voices in our movement happen to be Jewish.

      I invite you to read more about this here.

      You say "We cannot just go on your personal friends who like you, are in a circle who also probably are against circumcision."

      Shall I go by people like you, who are most likely an advocate of it?

    3. I thought this quote and link would be relevant here:

      "Currently, circumcision is not universal among Jews either inside or outside the United States. The Circumcision Resource Center, a nonprofit educational organization, knows of hundreds of Jews in Europe, South America, and in the United States who either have not or would not circumcise a son. Even in Israel some Jews do not circumcise, and there is an organization that publicly opposes circumcision."
      -Ron Goldman - "Circumcision: A Source of Jewish Pain"

    4. Also noteworthy; Theodor Herzl (1860–1904), the founder of Zionism and the spiritual father of the state of Israel, disapproved of circumcision and refused to do it to his own son.

    5. Circumcision is practiced by most Jewish people which makes it a universal practice in Judaism. Ron Goldman did not conduct a study nor did he source where he got that from. That resource center is made of people who are against the practice so it is not a representation of Jewish people in general.

      It would be dishonest to claim that it's not a common practice in Jewish people. Also, there are people who associate circumcision being awful in connection with Jewish people and I have seen it many times on social media.

    6. Vaccinations are done without consent and permanently alter their bodies. Vaccinations also do not cause an uproar like circumcision. More people are on board so it makes it easier to recommend immunization.

      Babies who are weak do die because they cannot go into another procedure so hence they cannot recommend it and should not. Many babies are born with some type of abnormality so they really can't take another procedure.

    7. I'm going to repeat myself one more time, and then I will stop allowing your posts on this topic. You are now crossing into trolling territory, you are wasting my time, and space on this comment section. You have had enough time and space to say your piece.

      I admit that parents must often make decisions for their children without their concent. This is an inevitable part of life.

      However, there is a line that must be drawn, as children aren't chattel for parents to do absolutely everything they want with them. Children grow up and become their own persons, capable of making their own decisions and choices, and crosses over into abuse when a parent limits the choices for their children as adults.

      If there is medical necessity for a surgical procedure, then it is a doctor's duty to discuss this with parents, and it is inevitable that parents must make a decision on behalf of the child.

      Where there is no medical necessity, parents cannot command a doctor to perform any other surgery. Reserving surgery as a very last resort is standard medical practice governing all other forms of surgery, and doctors have the professional duty to refuse to perform surgery that is not medically indicated.

      Under any other circumstance, reaping profit from performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud.

    8. You keep trying to lump in circumcision with vaccinations, but there are many reasons why this is fallacious.

      1. Vaccinations do not remove any part of the body, unlike circumcision, where a chunk of flesh is removed from a child's penis, altering its appearance, shape, texture, mechanics etc. for life.

      As this is the last time I'm going to address this in these comments, I will go into detail.

      Circumcision removes a piece of flesh that amounts to approximately 3x5 inches in an adult male, admittedly this is different, being greater or lesser in different males. This is a double fold of flesh that folds in on itself, creating a movable sheath that males can retract back and forth. Intact males often use this sheath to masturbate, and this sheath facilitates sexual intercourse. In circumcised males, depending on the degree of flesh removed, the skin on the shaft often becomes immobile, necessitating the need for lubrication during masturbation and sexual intercourse.

      Circumcision externalizes what is supposed to be internal mucosal tissue. Examples of internal mucosal tissue include the inner part of the mouth past the lips, the inner part of the eye-lid past the eye lashes, the inner part of the anus, the inner part of the nose past the nostrils etc. Circumcised males report being constantly irritated by the abrasive texture of clothing when walking, being active in sports, or just standing, much to the effect that some companies make specialized underwear for circumcised males.

      Circumcision causes the glans and surrounding mucosa to be dried out, permanently necessitating the need for lubrication for males when they masturbate and/or engage in sexual intercourse. In intact males, the foreskin keeps the glans and surrounding mucosal areas moist and supple eliminating the need for artificial lubrication. As a result of this drying out, the glans and surrounding areas gain a gray, leathery appearance, whereas these tend to be smooth and shiny in intact males.

      Circumcision results in the keritanization of what was supposed to be internal mucosal tissue, that is dead skin cells begin to accumulate on the mucosal tissue of the glans and remaining mucosal tissue surrounding it, desensitizing the organ by a factor of 4 according to the Sorrells study. As a result, circumcised males must work harder to achieve the same pleasure during masturbation and sex. Circumcised males are recorded to be extra rough with themselves when they engage in masturbation, and partners of circumcised males report that sex is much more painful with a circumcised partner, as they tend to thrust deeper and harder than their intact counterparts.

      In contrast, vaccination doesn't remove or alter any physical part of the body.

    9. 2. Vaccinations have been proven to strengthen the immune system against pathogens that cause serious diseases.

      I'm afraid that circumcision does not effect the immune system in any way whatsoever. Once a pathogen enters the body, being circumcised makes absolutely no difference.

    10. 3. Vaccines are recommended by every respected medical organization around the world. In contrast, not a single medical organization recommends male infant circumcision based on the existing medical literature. In the case of the AAP, they stopped short of a recommendation in their 2012 statement, stating paradoxically that "while the benefits ouf circumcision outweigh the risks, they are not great enough to recommend it."

      Some babies may react negatively to vaccines, sometimes resulting in their death, but for some reason the AAP and every other respected medical organization recommends them, in contrast with circumcision. By your myopic self-serving standard, vaccines should not be recommended for every child either.

      Go on, you should write to the AAP and every other respected medical organization around the world to complain.

      You should start a blog and write about it.

  35. Theodor Herzl was a horrible man who never admitted to the Armenian Genocide. I didn't find much about his thoughts on circumcision but he is a horrible example to bring up.

    1. It is a horrible example because it is devastating to your insistence that male infant circumcision is a universal practice amongst Jews. There is nothing more devastating to this claim than the very fact that the person who is considered to be father of the modern state of Israel refusing to circumcise his own son.

      With this, your claim is set to rest, and that is why you don't like this example.

      Given your past posts, I don't think there will be any good example I can give you, as you are always going to find some flaw in the examples I give.

      There are more examples of Jews speaking out against male infant circumcision here, though I'm sure the entire list is flawed too somehow.

      Have a nice day.