Infant Circumcision: What the Experts Say:
"There is no absolute
medical indication for routine circumcision of newborns".
of Pediatrics, Report of the Ad Hoc Task Force on Circumcision,
Pediatrics, vol. 56 no. 4, (October 1975)
"There are no medical
indications for routine male circumcision. It is a traumatic procedure
performed without anesthesia to remove a normal, functional and protective
College of Physicians - RACP- ; Australian Association of Paediatric Surgeons,
New Zealand Society of Paediatric Surgeons, Urological Society of Australasia,
Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, and Paediatric Society of New Zealand)
- September 2002
"Circumcision of newborns
should not be routinely (i.e., in the absence of medical indication) performed."
[Since there are no medical indications for circumcision in the newborn
period, in effect, the CPS is saying that newborn circumcisions should
not be performed.]
(Routine infant circumcision's)
"acceptability is rooted in traditional and cultural values. Circumcision
should not be routinely prescribed on the basis of beliefs disguised as
MD, "Routine Neonatal Circumcision: Boundary of Ritual and Science" American
Family Physician, vol. 41, no. 3
To circumcise... would
be unethical and inappropriate .... Circumcision
should be performed only for medical reasons."
evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision;
however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision".
"We can not recommend a policy of routine newborn circumcision".
it's history in recent times
the links below will activate a pop-up window which may show male genitalia
in some cases.
82% of the world's males
at the present moment are intact (i.e. not
circumcised). Routine infant circumcision as a preventative or cure
for masturbation was proposed in Victorian times in America, and soon became
institusionalised. Over the years, circumcision has been seen as a cure
measure for all manner of conditions including paralysis, insanity,
epilepsy, tuberculosis, enuresis, masturbation and phimosis, through to
the contemporary claims for prevention of urinary tract infections in boys,
and penile cancer and sexually transmitted diseases in adult males.
The procedure of routine
circumcision became commonplace in the US between 1870 and 1920, and it
consequently spread to other English-speaking countries (England, Canada,
Australia and New Zealand). None of the lattter countries nowadays routinely
circumcise the majority of their male children for non-religious purposes,
a distinction reserved today for the United States (in the UK, in fact,
nonreligious circumcision has virtually ceased). Yet, there are still those
who promote this social surgery, long after the masturbation hysteria of
the past century has subsided.
1888, John Harvey Kellogg, MD, of breakfast cereal fame (photo at right),
- who did more to popularise RIC thann anyone else - summed
up the medical profession's opinion and gave justification for the next
60 years of foreskin removal: "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,
especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment. In females,
the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris
an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement." (John Harvey
Kellogg, M.D., "Treatment for Self-Abuse and its Effects, Plain Fact for
Old and Young", Burlington, Iowa: F. Segner & Co. (1888). P. 295)
|Even before Kellogg, the Lancet published
an article in 1860 recommending circumcision as both punishment and "treatment"
for masturbation. "In cases of masturbation we must, I believe, break
the habit by inducing such a condition of the (genital) parts as will cause
too much local suffering to allow of the practice to be continued. For
this purpose, if the prepuce is long, we may circumcise the male patient
with present and probably with future advantages; the operation, too, should
not be performed under chloroform, so that the pain experienced may be
associated with the habit we wish to eradicate."
The circumcision advocates
gained popularity, vigorously promoting the procedure with zeal as a cure-all
for all ailments, and specifically "self-abuse"
a dying custom
During the last 50-100 years,
routine neonatal male circumcision thus became widespread in many English-speaking
countries. Being circumcised was a sign that the individual had been delivered
by a doctor rather than by a midwife. The rates of circumcision
at present vary from country to country, being about 60% in the USA (with
recent data suggesting falling
rates, after peaking in the 1980's), 30% in Ontario, Canada, 6% in
the UK (rates fell when circumcision became unavailable on the NHS), and
less than 2% in Scandinavia. At
its peak popularity during the 1980's, it was estimated that 69%
to 97% of all boys and men in the United States had been circumcised, in
comparison with 70% of those in Australia, 48% of those in Canada and 24%
of those in the United Kingdom. The procedure is even being questioned
among some non-Orthodox Jewish parents who are departing from the traditional
the ceremony of circumcision that initiates a baby into a covenant with
God. Instead, they turn to Jewish laws that forbid the causing of pain
to any living thing. Circumcision is uncommon in northern European countries,
Central and South America and Asia. The procedure is more common in African
and Pacific Island communities where traditional circumcisers are often
used, and in the Middle East where it is performed as a religious rite.
In 1949, the important work
of Gairdner appeared in Britain, which led to the virtual cessation of
medically-motivated circumcision in that country. Australia and New Zealand
now also have very low rates (5% or less, most of which are now performed
under a general anaesthetic in boys older than six months). From its original
roots in the ancient
world and the 19th century anti-masturbation hysteria, non-ritual routine
infant circumcision however continues in English-speaking western countries
(the United States, and to a lesser extent Canada, Australia and New Zealand)
because of mistaken beliefs and unfounded fears amongst a small part of
the population about hygiene, disease, appearance and sexuality, and denial
of the pain of infant circumcision. Even to this day, circumcision is still
imbedded in outdated and unscientific beliefs tending on witchcraft and
sorcery, but is still strongly promoted by the circumcision zealots, many
of whom have a financial
stake in the procedure.
By the early 1980's American
medical doctors had grudgingly accepted that circumcision didn't prevent
masturbation so they suspended their 130-year campaign against the "evils"
of masturbation - and other ailments which circumcision was supposed to
"cure" - but still promised that circumcision prevented (or at least reduced
the likelihood of) sexually transmitted diseases (specifically HIV/Aids),
penile cancer, cervical cancer in women, urinary tract infections, and
kidney failure. On a more elementary level, circumcision zealots invented
the smegma "problem" - something which is non-existent when normal body
hygiene is practised.
The largest problem remains
in the United States, where the procedure has become culturally entrenched.
Each day in the US, over 3,330 male newborns (60%) still have their foreskin
forcibly amputated without anesthesia in most (54% of) cases at the insistence
of gullible parents; annually over 1.25 million babies, costing over $200
million.The American public largely still believes circumcision to be a
useful procedure, even though the rest of the world does perfectly well
without it. Most medical aid schemes regard it as a non-subsidised "cosmetic"
treatment, rather than a medically necessary or even desirable procedure.
The modern day situation & scientific facts
What then are the basic facts
about RIC as it is known today?
AND RISKS OF RIC
Performing RIC has its short
and long time risks. Reports
of two large series have suggested that the short term complication rate
(immediately following circumcision) is somewhere between 0.2% and 0.6%.
[Another study showed a much higher rate: 2-10% for both minor and major
complications.] Bleeding and infection,
occasionally leading to sepsis, are the most
common adverse events requiring treatment, but is not at all the only
Therefore, the incidence
of complications of
circumcision approaches or exceeds the incidence of UTI among intact
male infants. Although some of the complications are less severe than a
UTI, the incidence and cost of complications need to be included in any
assessment of the cost-effectiveness of routine circumcision.
Apart from the short term
complications of RIC, the most common permanent consequences of circumcision
scars. An estimated 30% of circumcised males show surgical scars
which range from minor
to severe. Operating scars, skin
tags , and excessive
removal of foreskin are common, with at the other extreme surgical
mishaps in which the penis head was almost severed
from the shaft. Because of the interruption of the normal blood flow through
the penis as a result of circumcision, varicose
veins often develop. Although cosmetic surgery can reduce the impact
of some of these surgical disasters, the victims have to live with it for
the rest of their lives. The impact of surgical scars and penis mutilation
is far more frequent in third world countries where routine male circumcision
is often practised.
PAIN DURING RIC
There is considerable evidence
that newborns who are circumcised without analgesia experience pain
and physiological stress. Neonatal physiologic responses to circumcision
include changes in heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and cortisol
levels.One report has noted that circumcised infants exhibit a stronger
pain response to subsequent routine immunization than do intact infants.
There is adequate evidence
that the circumcision procedure also results in a disruption in the early
bonding which occurs between the mother and child. The pain and trauma
which the infant undergoes during and after circumcision usually interrupts
breast feeding which can be a factor in interfering with bonding as well
as causing a lessening of trust of the mother by her infant.
In the very rare few cases
(less than 4% of newborn male babies) where circumcision is medically necessary
( the best recognised indication for circumcision is phimosis which cannot
be treated otherwise), parents should insist on local or preferably general
anaesthesia and proper pain-killing procedures.
Circumcision has been suggested
as an effective method of maintaining penile hygiene since the time of
dynasties , but the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) says "there
is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status
and optimum penile hygiene". "The intact penis is easy to keep clean. .
. . Caring for your son's intact penis requires no special action.
. . . Foreskin retraction should never be forced." Circumcsion is most
popular in countries with low levels of personal hygiene, warm climates
and scarce water resources (where a daily bath is not the norm).
In one study, appropriate
hygiene decreased significantly the incidence of phimosis, adhesions, and
inflammation (all complications for which circumcision is often regarded
as a "remedy"). In this study, 60% of parents remembered receiving instructions
on the care of the intact penis, and most followed the advice they were
given. Various studies suggest that genital hygiene needs to be emphasized
as a preventive health topic throughout a patient's lifetime, despite the
circumcision status. The daily care of the intact penis takes very little
more care than that of the circumcised penis during the daily bath: roll
back the foreskin of the intact penis and give the head a rinse with soap
and water, just as you would in the case of a circumcised penis.
Data for multiple studies
suggest that intact male infants are more likely than are circumcised males
to develop a UTI in the first year of life. Urinary tract infections are
not life threatening and are easily treated in most cases. The incidence
of UTI among male infants was significantly higher just after circumcision
(from 9 to 20 days of life) than during the rest of the first month of
life and significantly higher in the first month of life than during the
rest of the year. An epidemiological study of UTI during the first year
of life involving 169 children born in Israel found that 48% of the male
infants presented with UTI within 12 days after ritual circumcision.
Published date from a population-based
cohort study of 58,000 Canadian infants suggests an intact male infant
has a 1 in 140 chance of being hospitalized for a UTI during the first
year of life; a circumcised male infant has an approximate 1 in 530
chance of being hospitalized for a UTI during the first year of life. Using
numbers from the literature, one can estimate that 7 to 14 of 1000 intact
male infants will develop a UTI during the first year of life, compared
with 1 to 2 of 1000 circumcised male infants. Although the relative risk
of UTI in intact male infants compared with circumcised male infants is
increased, the absolute risk of developing a UTI in an intact male infant
is low (at most, ~1%). This is of the same order of magnitude as the
risk of contracting a complication during RIC. Why risk the possibility
of complications as a result of RIC when it is of the same order of magnitude
as the risk of contracting a UTI? Stating the statistics above in a
different manner: intact males have a 99,3% chance of NOT getting a
UTI, whereas a circumcised male has a 99,8% chance of NOT getting a UTI.
To perform RIC as a reason for limiting the chances of contracting a UTI
is scientifically ujustified.
CANCER OF THE
Cancer of the penis is a
rare disease (and much rarer than breast cancer in females); the annual
age-adjusted incidence of penile cancer is 0.9 to 1.0 per 100 000 males
in the United States. In countries where the overwhelming majority of men
are intact, the rate of cancer varies from 0.82 per 100 000 in Denmark
to 2.9 to 6.8 per 100 000 in Brazil and 2.0 to 10.5 per 100 000 in India.
Statistics prove that penile cancer shows a far greater correlation with
personal hygiene and smoking than it does to circumcision status. More
men contract cancer of the breast than penile cancer, yet their breasts
are not routinely surgically removed for this reason.
An annual penile cancer rate
of 0.9 to 1.0 per 100 000 translates to 9 to 10 cases per year per 1 million
men (the majority of which are treatable). In a developed country such
as the United States, penile cancer is a rare disease and the risk of penile
cancer developing in an intact man, although increased compared with a
circumcised man, is low. Nevertheless, because this disease is rare and
occurs later in life, the use of circumcision as a preventive practice
is not justified, and in many countries where most men are intact, the
penile cancer rate is lower than that of the United States, where RIC is
The risk of contracting a
complication during RIC is far more than the risk of contracting penis
cancer. In fact, in 1996, representatives of the American Cancer Society
wrote a letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics pointing out that,
caused by circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from
penile cancer.... Perpetuating the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents
cancer is inappropriate.'"
"There is no proven, documented
medical reason that says circumcision is better," says Karin Blakemore,
director of the maternal-fetal medicine division at Johns Hopkins University
School of Medicine. Between an estimated 2 and 50 infants die every year
in the U.S. due to complications from circumcision - more than the annual
fatality rate in intact males due to penis cancer.
STD'S AND HIV/AIDS
Evidence regarding the relationship
of circumcision to STD's in general is complex and conflicting. Claims
that intact males have a higher risk for HIV infection have not
been confirmed. Fleiss
et al. have described the many natural immunological protective mechanisms
provided by the prepuce against infection.The prepuce has many immunological
protections against disease.1These mechanisms may explain why surgically-altered,
circumcised men seem to have a greater incidence of many different STDs.
Dried-out mucous membranes are more prone to infection than naturally moist
ones (which is the reason people tend to get more colds in the wintertime!).The
foreskin naturally moisturizes the glans penis, keeping it in optimum healthy
condition to resist infection. The subpreputial moisture also contains
lyzosyme, an enzyme that attacks and destroys the cell walls of bacteria.
et al. reviewed data from the National Health and Social Life Survey.They
found no evidence of a prophylactic role for circumcision. In fact, there
was a slight tendency in the opposite direction. The absence of the foreskin
was significantly associated with bacterial STDs among men who have had
many sexual partners in their lifetimes. Tanne
reported on the epidemic of STD's, including herpes, human papillomavirus
infection, hepatitis B, and HIV infection in the United States. The incidence
of STD in the United States is amongst the highest in the industrialized
world. This should not be surprising, considering the high incidence of
circumcision in the US:
Regardless of these findings,
factors are far more important risk factors for acquisition of HIV and
other sexually transmissible diseases than circumcision status, and
circumcision cannot be responsibly viewed as "protecting" against such
infections. It is documented that circumcised adult males exhibit a greater
tendency to engage in risky sexual behavior. The only sure safeguard
against STD's and HIV/Aids is practising safe sex, not having the foreskin
amputated. And circumcision does
not equal safe sex. The chances
of contracting HIV/Aids during unsafe sex only differs between a circumcised
and an intact male; circumcision does not
provide protection agains
HIV/Aids. If that was the case, how do we explain
the far higher incidence of HIV/Aids amongst American males (of whom 60%
are routinely circumcised nowadays) as opposed to the far lower incidence
of HIV/Aids amonst European males, of whom 90% are intact? And how do you
explain the excessively high rate of HIV/Aids in Ethiopia, where virtually
all males are circumcised?
The National Organization
of Circumcision Resource Centers (NOCIRC) finds that, based on currently
available data, male circumcision is not effective
in preventing the transmission or reception of any sexually transmitted
disease, including HIV. Furthermore, the promotion of circumcision
to prevent HIV transmission/reception is likely to provide a false sense
security in circumcised
males and to divert attention and resources from effective proven measures
of disease control. Moreover, male circumcision has many adverse physical,
sexual, and psychological effects. In view of these adverse effects and
lack of efficacy, the use of male circumcision as
a disease control measure is contraindicated and inappropriate.
Even if it was made to be
painless, George Denniston - a Seattle physician and founder of Doctors
Opposing Circumcision -
asserts, "The practice
(of RIC) violates all seven principles of the American Medical Association's
code of ethics." As currently
practiced in U.S. hospitals,
circumcision is essentially cosmetic surgery not only done without anesthesia,
but done, obviously,
without the informed
consent of the patient. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics
Committee on Bioethics,
"Parental permission [as
proxy consent] is only acceptable in situations where medical intervention
has a clear and immediate
medical necessity." The
latter occurs in between 4 to 6 out of every 1000 male babies.
When an infant or child is
circumcised, they did NOT make the decision. This makes it a VIOLATION
OF HUMAN RIGHTS. If parents are so sure the child would approve, why not
wait until he's old enough to make up his own mind?
Furthermore, unlike necessary
such as inoculation and vaccination against diseases, circumcision is a
totally unnecessary procedure.
Several United Nations resolutions,
conventions and declarations appear to forbid routine infant male circumcision.
These prohibitions are based on such critical rights as the rights of the
child, the right to freedom of religion, the right to the highest attainable
standard of health, and the right to protection against torture.
The Convention on the Rights
of the Child - which the United States had signed but not ratified - imposes
various obligations which are violated by male genital mutilation, including
sexual abuse, torture, interference with privacy, the right to safety while
under the care of a parent or guardian, and the right to health.
LONG TERM PSYCHOLOGICAL
Without published studies,
current knowledge of men's feelings about their circumcision is generally
based on reports from self-selected men who have contacted the Circumcision
Resource Center (CRC) and other circumcision information organizations.
The feelings reported generally include anger, sense of loss, shame, sense
of having been victimized and violated, fear, distrust, grief, and jealousy
of intact men.
The overwhelming majority
of these men were circumcised as newborn infants. The memory of this event
is not in their conscious awareness. Consequently, the connection between
present feelings and circumcision may not be clear. However, some men attribute
feelings to their circumcision. Based on the responses of men who contacted
the CRC, the origin of this attribution is in the impact of discovering
one's circumcision as a child. If a child grows in a community that has
children who are not circumcised, it is probable that someday the circumcised
boy will notice the difference. Under certain circumstances the realization
that part of the penis was cut off can have trauma-like consequences, such
as recurrent unwelcome thoughts and images.
The effects of the operation
are not restricted to the sexual sphere, since psychologically, circumcision
is a trauma which can result in a great variety of post traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD) symptoms, as can other traumas. Those include learned helplessness,
tendencies towards sado-masochistic behaviors, impotence, lost of trust,
avoidance of intimacy due to fear, rage, domestic violence, rape, child
sexual abuse, suicide, and a range of psychosomatic disorders.
The international ethics
code for medical practices is based on four criteria:
How does RIC stand up to these
Beneficence: any medical
procedure must be beneficient. The American Academy of Pediatrics
clearly: "There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision
of newborns", i.e. there are no clear cut medical benefits
as a result of circumcision which justifies its application. RIC is unneccessary
and fails this test.
well intended as they may be, parents who force RIC on their newborn male
babies allow a violent and painful act to be performed on them, often without
the application of anaesthesia - one which modifies their bodies irreversibly.
RIC fails this test.
Justice: Justice is
clearly NOT served by performing RIC on a baby boy; it is NOT a just act.
RIC fails this test.
Autonomy: i.e. having
a say over one's own body. Clearly RIC fails this test miserably: the autonomy
of baby boys are taken away when non-consensual RIC is performed on them.
RIC fails this test.
The scoreboard: on the ethics
question, RIC fails all four internationally accepted
criteria, scoring nil out of four.
A majority of boys born in
the United States still undergo nonritual routine circumcisions. This occurs
in large measure because parental decision-making is based on social
or cultural expectations, rather than medical concerns. Studies from the
1980s suggested that the presentation of medical information on the potential
advantages and disadvantages of circumcision had little influence on parents'
decisions. This finding was recently confirmed. In another contemporary
study, nearly half of those physicians performing circumcisions did not
discuss the potential medical risks and benefits of elective circumcision
prior to delivery of the infant son. Deferral of discussion until after
birth, combined with the fact that many parents' decisions about circumcision
are preconceived, contribute to the high rate of elective circumcision
[The other major contributing factor is the willingness - even keenness
- of doctors to do it.] Major factors in pppaarental decision-making are
the father's circumcision status (fathers who mistakenly believe that their
sons would like "to look like daddy"), opinions of family members and friends,
a desire for conformity in their son's appearance, and the mistaken belief
that the circumcised penis is easier to care for with respect to local
hygiene. [All of these become irrelevant if the penis's owner later decides
he would prefer his penis to have been left alone.] Circumcsion as a "remedy"
for medical reasons are indeed unwarranted, since modern medicine has adequate
alternatives to treat and prevent penile problems.
LOSS OF SENSITIVITY
Circumcision ALWAYS causes
irreparable loss of sexual pleasure because of a loss of sensitivity.
Men circumcised in adulthood say this loss is as much as 90%! Male
circumcision removes 33 - 50% of the penile skin, as well as nearly
all of the penile fine touch neuroreceptors. The foreskin protects the
head of the penis, enhances
sexual pleasure, and facilitates intercourse. Men circumcised as adults
report a significant loss of sensitivity. People who say that circumcision
doesn't affect or only slightly affects sexuality have NOT experienced
The foreskin is erogenous
tissue filled with nerve endings called stretch receptors. These nerve
endings fire when they are stretched, rolled, or massaged. The only purpose
of these nerve endings is to make
sex more enjoyable. The stretch receptors are unlike the nerve endings
in the head of the penis which are very sensitive to friction but can be
so sensitive that the sensation can be irritating or painful. The nerve
endings in the head of the penis tend to trigger orgasm much more than
the nerve endings in the foreskin that can enhance penile sensations during
This flesh is like the hood
of the female clitoris in function and anatomy. Both are comparable to
the sensitive tissue of eyelids, inner lining of the tips and palms of
the hands. No sane person would consider female circumcision as necessary,
but yet many regard routine male infant circumcision as a "necessary" procedure.
Unlike the penis intact,
the circumcised penis is not protected by a sheath. The constantly exposed
glans grows layers ofnerveless, leather-like cells (cornification)
in an attempt to protect itself and [over time] the head becomes an abnormal,
unnatural,desensitized and toughened
organ .” Men circumcised later in life have complained that the removal
of their foreskin dramatically reduced their sensual experience. This
is an irreversable, life-long sentence.
Circumcised men are FAR more
likely to acquire erectile dysfunction (impotence). For one thing, during
circumcision, the blood supply of the penis is DRASTICALLY altered, and
vessels are destroyed. Since erection relies on blood, it's easy to
see why this is so detrimental. More importantly, erectile dysfunctions
can be caused by the severe loss of sexual pleasure from circumcision,
and the constant callusing of the glans penis.
Circumcision is an act of
DESTRUCTION. It destroys flesh, blood vessels, muscle tissue, sexual nerves,
and much more. It destroys the victims sense of wholeness and their rights.
It is destruction and mutilation. A circumcised penis
is LESS PENIS.
YES, BUT WHAT
The circumcision zealots,
in desperate efforts to "justify" the operation (now that it is no longer
regarded as a "cure" for masturbation and its supposed dire consequences)
has focused on smegma. All mammals produce smegma, including the cirumcised
ones (both male and female)
"Analogous to tears, smegma
is the compilation of secretions by ectopic sebaceous glands located in
the prepuce, the seminal secretions of the Cowper's gland and the prostate,
the mucin content of the secretions of the urethral glands, and the sloughed
epithelial cells. It provides the necessary mucosal lubricant and moisturizer
and is rich in sexual pheromones. The prepuce normally prevents detection
of this phenomenally charged scent until the glans is exposed at the time
erection takes place." (Routine Neonatal Circumcision: An Update,
by Robert S. Van Howe, MD)
Not only is smegma (a Greek
word meaning "soap") not harmful, it is actually beneficial, serving as
a protective coating and lubricant for the glans.Its antibacterial and
antiviral properties keep the penis clean and healthy. Circumcisions
do not end the production of smegma; it merely gets smeared off on
the underclothes. Women also produce smegma, quite a bit more than men
actually (and they are not
circumcised for doing so!). Smegma is not dirty: smegma is a combination
of natural glans lubrication and discarded cells. The production of smegma
is part of the process of cellular regeneration. It is natural and healthy.
A daily bath would get rid of any smegma accumulated under the foreskin
by rolling it back and rinsing the glans penis. After all, you don't pull
your teeth out simply because plaque forms on them; you clean them with
BEAUTY IS IN THE
EYE OF THE BEHOLDER
Opinion polls amongst women
living in countries where circumcision is not routinely practised, show
preference for the appearance of the intact
penis. For 85% of the women all over the world, the circumcised penis
is ugly and unnatural. Besides, by simply rolling back the foreskin any
intact male can indeed emulate the "circumcised look"; the opposite is
impossible. This, to some extent, explains the popularity of internet websites
promoting foreskin restoration. Besides, in countries where circumcision
is the exception, "cut" boys are the target of jokes of lockerroom nudity.
There are no medical indications for routine male circumcision. For every
good "reason" proposed by the pro-circumcision zealots, there are ready
My own preference, if I had the good
fortune to have another son, would be to leave his little penis alone.
Neonatal circumcision does not reduce HIV/AIDS infection
Academy of Pediatrics Won't Recommend Circumcision -
Opposing Circumcision -
Male Circumcision Fact Sheet -
Against Circumcision -
a Circumcision! -
Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC) -
to Your Questions About Infant Circumcision -
Memory of the Sexually Mutilated Child -
Scream We Will Never Forget" -
Circumcised Male Has Less Penis" -
Serial Circumcisers -
Short History of Circumcision in the U.S. in Physicians' Own Words -
Deaths/Disasters Headlines -
for Sale -
sucking blood from baby's penis -
Stern on Circumcision -
I realized that Judaism cut me off from part of myself, I cut myself off
from Judaism" -
Shalom - Covenant of Wholeness -
Jewish Circumcision: Jewish Associates of CRC -
Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective" by Dr. Ronald Goldman -
Ronald Goldman on Circumcision -
A Source of Jewish Pain; Dr. Ronald Goldman -
Psychological Impact of Circumcision, by Dr. Ronald Goldman -
Review; Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma by Ronald Goldman -
and Religion (NOCIRC) -
Jewish Roots of Anti-Circumcision Arguments -
Circumcision in the Jewish Community? -
His Cousin Allah, and Sexual Mutilations -
Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective -
Cultural and Religious Issues (CIRP) -
Holy Bible, Circumcision, False Prophets, and Christian Parents -
Parents and the Circumcision Issue -
Mutilate in the Name of Jehovah or Allah -
Shalom Ceremony -
Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints and Circumcision -
Baby Boys 'Criminal Assault' -
Complications of Circumcision -Circumcision in America -
in America, Part 2 -
It What It Is: Child Abuse -
Parts for Sale in Massachusetts -
Sites on Circumcision -
Feel Pain -
Pain and its Effects -
and Pain -
Feel Pain -
Don't Feel Pain: A Century of Denial in Medicine -
Prevention and Management of Pain and Stress in the Neonate (RE9945) -
Circumcision: Legal Issues -
Circumcision and the Rights of the Child -
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child -
in the News -
Other WWW Resources -
Circumcision Horror Stories -
International: Nurses and Human Rights -
U.S. Incidence of Neonatal Circumcision Complications -
Circumcision Policy Statement (RE9850) -
Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males (NOHARMM)
Organization of Restoring Men -
Information and Resource Pages -
Friendly Childbirth Initiative -
Genital Mutilation American Style -
Medical Quotes on Circumcision -
The Case Against Circumcision -
The Medical Basis for Routine Circumcision -
The Compleat Mother -
Refuse to Participate in Circumcision -
Amicus Curaie Brief in Matthew Price Case -
Not To Circumcise Son Still Leaves Heated Legal Debate -