I am sorry to tell you Janet Jarrett, but you are simply misinformed about this being a procedure to protect infant hygiene. PLEASE learn more about the risks associated with this UNNECESSARY and PERMANENTLY damaging COSMETIC surgery. That's like saying that children that can't clean behind their ears thoroughly should have them lopped off. The skin that is removed during circumcision has many purposes. It is NO different than female circumcision, at all. Your future sons will thank you. We cannot change the past, only our future and when we know better we do better.

This video clearly illustrates how circumcision is much more than 'snipping off a bit of skin' - which by the way, who would do that, either?!
http://youtu.be/bXVFFI76ff0

Join me for a FREE informative discussion on the topic:
http://circumcisiondecisionatl.eventbrite.com

How disturbing that some people still think that there is some difference between cutting chunks off of a girl's genitals and cutting chunks off of a boy's genitals. There is no difference between genital cutting on a girl and genital cutting on a boy. It's all genital cutting on children, it's all a violation of the child's human rights, it's all about control, and it all should be equally illegal. Janet Jarrett, did a doctor tell you something that patently absurd? If so, that is an incompetent, immoral doctor who should lose his/her medical license.
So to answer the question posed in the title of this article, yes of course circumcision and ALL forms of genital cutting *on children* should be a crime.

So many Americans are just plain ignorant when it comes to this mindless norm. It's not more hygienic! No national medical organization in the world recommends it. In no other country in the industrialized is this procedure routine, and yet European, Canadian, and Australian men have no increase rate of genitourinary complications. The only reason it caught on in the US is due to the Victorian era belief that it would prevent masturbation, and it remains ingrained in our culture because our ignorance is quite profitable. The reality is that it's no different from many forms of female circumcision. In fact, it is often more invasive. Ethnocentrism is what prevents so many from seeing this reality.

“The climate in Germany is different from in America, where more half the males are circumcised.”
Actually, the 2009 circumcision rate in The US was only 32.5%. How did you come up with this number?
“Dr. Dieter Graumann, felt the court issued an “unprecedented and dramatic interference in the right of religious communities to self-determination.” He added that the decision is an “inappropriate and insensitive act."
Every year,between 117 and 229 infants die as a result of their circumcision injuries. A law such as the German court enacted is totally appropriate. It will save lives. Isn’t that a legitimate function of government?
“I'd like to be PC and say I think it's the parent's choice, but the more I learn, I just can't do that. It's the choice of the child”
Yes, the child is the only one that will live in that body and the only one that will have to deal with the consequences. It should be his and only his decision.
“Athens mom Janet Jarrett feels that making circumcision a human rights issue is taking the argument to an unacceptable place.”
We are the owners of our body. That is a human right. We should have final determination over our property. Females are also owners of their bodies and the law protects that right. Why shouldn’t that right extend to males? Answer please!
“"To label millions of loving parents (myself included) who opted to circumcise our boys as human right violators is going a bit too far,"

Continued . . .

Not at all. You chose to steal a part of your son’s body and genitalia at the most vulnerable time of his life. You most definitely violated his human rights. But, you can right this situation. Just give him the right to cut off part of your genitals and all will be even.

“Clearly, there are. I would even argue that female circumcision is just cause, but snipping a little skin for hygienic reasons is not."

Male circumcision is not “snipping.” It is a sexually damaging amputation. Hygenic? There is no hygiene required or recommended for boys before their foreskin becomes retractile. This averages happening at 10.5 years old. So, for 10 ½ years, there is nothing to do for hygiene. After that, it’s just pulling the foreskin back and washing it like a circumcised penis. Just as for women, soap is NOT recommended as it can burn delicate tissues as is the case for females.

“Whether you support the ruling or not, the decision made in the German court will likely influence how the law is interpreted in the future and may make doctors less willing to perform circumcisions.”

Let’s hope so. Doctors do it for the profits and the profits only. Circumcision is not recommended by any medical association in the world. A busy OB/GYN can easily make $100,000.00 from circumcisions alone. Let’s hope those who influence this take notice of the German decision and act accordingly. The German decision is right and appropriate.

Continued . . .

“What do you think? Which is more important, a child’s right to bodily integrity or the rights of the child’s parents?”

There is no “right” to cut important parts off of children. There is no law on the books of The United States, the state of Georgia or Athens/Clark County that bestows this right. It is an assumed right and the assumption is false. It has not been enforced *yet* but there are laws on the books (in the US) already that makes circumcising a child illegal.

It's illegal to cut off a girl's prepuce, or to make any incision on a girl's genitals, even if no tissue is removed, and even if the parents think it's their religious right or obligation. Even a pinprick is banned.

Why don't boys get the same protection? Everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want parts of their genitals cut off. It's *their* body.

Mark Lyndon wrote: "Why don't boys get the same protection?"

Mark, it is simply blatant sexual discrimination.

Males should get the same protection. The 14th Amendment to The US Constitution, "The Equal Protection Clause," requires that all laws apply equally to all classes of citizens. The 1996 FGM Law was written with specific verbage to deny this protection to males and is therefore, unconstitutional. As the
German Court decided, minor male circumcision is a violation of the child's Constitutional rights.

Dear Ms. Hewett, I suppose that opinion pieces are biased by their very nature -- no one writes an opinion piece without having a strong opinion but the best opinion pieces present facts on both sides of an argument. However, you fail to mention that male circumcision is a religious rite practiced by Jewish and Muslim communities and has been for thousands of years and the original health claims for circumcision in the medical community come from lower incidences of cervical and penile cancer and other genital problems in members of these populations.

And I see that the anti-circumcision supporters are out in force making factually inaccurate statements and conflating the issue by equating it with female circumcision. Female circumcision removes the clitoris, a major source of sexual stimulation for women, whereas circumcised males are fully capable of having satisfying sex and orgasms. In fact, one could argue that given that a common form of sexual dysfunction in couples is premature ejaculation by males, that the decreased sensitivity that supposedly accompanies circumcision could be considered a "martial benefit". To deny that there are health benefits to circumcision is absurd especially in light of recent studies on AIDS, HPV and prostate cancer. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/health/legislators-set-an-example-with-circumcisions.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/health/research/report-says-circumcision-may-reduce-risk-of-prostate-cancer.htm (con.)

Personally, and as a member of the Jewish faith, I have mixed feelings about circumcision and I am aware of the studies that show that as long as the area under the foreskin is kept very clean the benefits of circumcision are reduced. Nonetheless, I can't help but be disturbed by people who would like to ban a rite that has been practiced since the origin of my religion. And for those of you who claim that circumcision is a huge life-long trauma, look at the scientific, literary, and artistic achievements of Jews everywhere, as far as achievement goes it hasn't hurt us too badly when you look at the facts.

Gary Grossman wrote: "the original health claims for circumcision in the medical community come from lower incidences of cervical and penile cancer and other genital problems in members of these populations. "

Those claims need close inspection. Male penile cancer is vanishingly rare in the first place occuring at most in only 1 of 109,000 men. But the circumcision procedure is a greater threat. ! in 7,000 infants will die as a direct result of their circumcision.

Prevention of cervical cancer is also a distraction. Both cervical cancer and penile cancer (Squamous cell carcinoma in situ) are caused by the human papilloma virus. There are now 2 effective and safe vaccines on the market.

But, that is only half the story. The claim is that male circumcision will stop the HPV virus but estimates are that more than 70% of Americans have been infected. Male circumcision has done nothing to prevent anyHPV infection or cancer.

Any other problem is addressed with simple medications. What most people don't realize is that bacteria, fungals and virals can not discern or discriminate between male and female cells. This means that the infections males contract are the exact same infections females contract and can be as effectively treated with the same medications as females with the same prognosis for successful treatment. There are mythical stories of males who had to be circumcised because of incurable infections. These stories are purely mythical and untrue.

First, let me say, I am sooooo glad I have a daughter and wasn't faced with this choice. If we were to have a son, I would have let my husband (who is circumcised) choose since he has the parts I lack. He thought I was crazy for even questioning the procedure...until our doulas provided him with info regarding circumcision. By then we knew we were having a girl, but he seriously began to question the procedure. I'd like to think we wouldn't have circumcised had she been a he. My own research into the issue has lead me to many interesting articles and essays on the subject. One article claimed that the history in the Jewish faith did not originally indicate the removal of the foreskin, but rather the nicking of the skin to draw a bit of ceremonial blood. I'm of the opinion that any unnecessary medical procedure is surely for the benefit of profit by the medical community. I just wish that parents were more informed about the supposed "hygienic" benefits associated with it and the fact that no medical organization actually recommends it. I know from websites like Saving Our Sons and Peaceful Parenting that there are a great many parents who regret their uninformed decision. Do I think they are criminals? No. Not unless we are also going to criminalize parents who pierce their child's ears. I commend you for opening up the discussion.

I chose not to circumcise my son because I felt that it was unnecessary. I do not regret my decision in the slightest. I believe that people who circumcise their sons are grossly misinformed about the benefits and risks of the procedure.
However, I do not think that the act should be criminalized, if only for the fact that I think too many things that we practice in our daily lives are already illegal, and it is wrong to make criminals of people who think they are doing the right thing for their child.
Circumcision is gross, but some people think tattoos and piercings are gross, too - both are acts which involve pain and disfigurement.
My only hope is that more people will gain knowledge and understanding about this topic and stop circumcising their baby boys.

Don't really want to wade into this. For me, as a Jewish mother of a son, I can say it is not a rational decision, it's a visceral one. If my son isn't circumcised, he isn't Jewish, even in the most liberal communities.

PunkTorah sums up it up best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz0ByUZQ9eE

Dear Frank, obviously I've hit a raw ..., well we'll leave unsaid exactly what is raw. Normally, I try to keep sarcasm out of discussions like this but given that you opened the door I am going to assume that I am as able to walk through it as you are.

I am disappointed that you cite statistic after statistic without any source and I suspect that is because your figures are from some "circumcision is immoral" web site rather than from scientific information that would be accepted in the medical or epidemiological community. For example, you repeatedly state the number of boys that die from circumcision-related injuries but you never state how many of these deaths occurred when trained medical personnel performed the operation or with proper medical follow up, etc. All surgical procedures have risks and there are many deaths annually from simple procedures, which only means that everyone should be aware of what they are and weigh them and their choice of surgeons and hospitals accordingly. You continuously make ridiculous statements about research being fraudulent and imply the same about researchers, once again without any scientifically valid reference and seem quite uninformed about medical research (e.g. medical studies often are ended early when it is clear that the treatment is so effective that it would be unethical to continue having an untreated control group). And do you really believe that "up to 95%" of genitally mutilated women are sexually satisfied? con

con. I notice that multiple posters have stated that no medical organization supports circumcision, but the facts are slightly different. Medical organizations are neutral with respect to circumcision and the American Academy of Pediatrics is reexamining its position as of March of this year, given new evidence "that links higher prevalence of circumcision to lower rates of penile cancer, urinary tract infections, phimosis, balanitis and meatitis, as well as HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases." I won't both to answer your other unsupported statements but many of them are based on faulty logic (circumcision associated death therefore it should be banned, guess what, hospitals are associated with death so let's ban them too) or obfuscation such as your repeated use of "up to" with a percentage rather than reporting an average. Say there are four studies 3 of which find no side effects of circumcision but the fourth finds 95% which allows you to say "up to 95%" but that statement does not accurately reflect the real frequency of the effect. Finally, for someone who barks about red herrings for you to say "Israel (Jewish and circumcised) is the world's largest counterfieter of Viagra. Consumption" as evidence in opposition to circumcision is despicable and makes me wonder if your opposition is at least partially based on anti-semitism.
continued

As for Ms. Templeton who once again without any medically valid evidence just prefers to call me "grossly misinformed", I say bravo, you've really helped convince your neighbors (and we are your neighbors) of the rigor of your position but more importantly your lack of civility and respect for opposing points of view. I actually have an open mind about circumcision but after this round it is clear that Patch is inhabited by many "anti-circumcision true-believers" who ignore all evidence contrary to their own views. That is sad because Patch should be a great vehicle for bringing us together as a community in mutual respect for a diversity of views. Because of the religious implications of the issue and the predominance of one view in the comments I felt it necessary to respond, but I deplore the fact that it has ended in name-calling and slurs against countries associated with religions that practice circumcision. Well it's time to cut this off <g>.

Leigh, Thanks for writing such a thought-provoking opinion piece and for including relevant statistics. I appreciate how you gave 2 sides of the issue... in my opinion, the type of laws that invade religious freedoms are on particularly shaky ground. I suspect that many world and religious organizations will be rallying against an ill-advised decision. That's just my opinion. Parental rights, religious rights, Big Brother lurking? I think we've had many cautionary tales as to why this is dangerous ground!

I would also add there is a particularly bitter irony to the fact that it is Germany making laws that infringe upon religious freedom...you'd think they'd have learned better by now.

Frank,
I see that you've left many comments over at other Patches on stories that cover circumcision. Clearly, you are passionate about the topic as you mentioned being a victim yourself. I'm honestly curious to know if your approach has ever changed a person's stance on the subject? I'm not shocked to see that this debate has taken an ugly turn because it is such a controversial topic but I'd like to believe that we could discuss this without throwing around insults. Let's try and play nice, okay boys?

This is definitely an intense subject. I have a daughter; however, I thought I might have a boy for a while and what I learned about circumcision and how my heart felt when I thought about, I knew that I would not "choose" to have my son circumcised, had my child been a boy. I also don't believe that the gov't should choose FOR me what my decision is either though. For circumcision OR for abortion, etc. But I will honestly say that if and when I do have a son, circumcision will not be the choice...and at the same time, I do not judge those who have made it their choice to do so.

Once again, Leigh, you have brought an extremely interesting and relevant topic to the forefront. I'll say this, wading through all the research is overwhelming. My husband and I had a choice to make, and we lovingly made an informed decision. We spoke to several pediatricians, came home with a pile of research based articles, read articles on the internet, and we made the decision that felt appropriate for our little boy. We did not take this decision lightly, and we found that both sides of this argument are medically substantiated.

There will always be pros and cons to any argument. But the question posed, was should circumcision be a crime. The answer is NO. It is the choice of the parents to make that decision, not the government. Like Scarlet said, she and her husband spent time researching and then made a decision. They had (I am assuming) the best information possible to use making the decision and they made it.
When it came to my son, yes, his father and I sat down and talked about it and we decided that circumcision was in the best interest for Nicholas.
But no matter what, it was our decision to make. Everything I have read said that circumcision at or near birth is always the safest and healthiest option if you are going to have it done. And while yes, there can be an argument made that it should be the person who has the foreskins decision, I don't feel at 36 hours old, my son was informed enough to make that decision for himself.
That is why, as parents, the decision is ours. Not the governments. If we let them tell us what procedures we are allowed and not allowed to have on our children, where does it stop? Will we be put in jail for having our child immunized? For breast feeding?
In the United States, a child is a child until they are 18... After that, they may make their own decisions regarding their body. And while I have heard of men wanting to be circumcised later in life, I don't think a man has ever asked to have the foreskin returned!

A friend of mine wrote this piece for the Times of Israel about her thoughts on circumcision. Check it out.
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/did-i-ruin-my-sons-penis/

I have firm opinions about this subject, but I will merely offer my own experience with this issue, instead of offering controversial dialogue. My son is 9 years old and I chose not to circumcise him. He's never had an infection or any sort of hygiene problem with his private parts. He's a cool kid and I hope he gets more out of life because I chose not to cut parts of him off at the beginning of his life, before he could even speak!

Hm.........my little buddy is circumcised and he gets along just great. Just sayin'.

Bit late to this one, huh, Mike?