The Earth Party
Infant Bodily Integrity
1. The Law on Human Rights
2. How Mutilation Harms
3. The "Religion" Excuse - Debunked
4. The "Medical" Excuse - Debunked
5. The Long-Term Effects of Mass Trauma
"What is the Earth Party's position on infant genital mutilation (also known as IGM, male-genital mutilation, female-genital-mutilation, FGM, MGM, circumcision, female-circumcision, etc)?"
This is an issue of Human Rights.
The fundamental Human Right is Benign Sovereignty, which means that everyone has the right to full sovereignty over their own self, as long as they're not violating the rights of anyone else.
From this is derived the Right to Bodily Integrity:
1. The Right to Bodily Integrity
To be physically Whole,
free from all forms of assault,
unless violating the rights of another;
free from non-consensual sexual contact;
and free from non-consensual anatomical alteration,
except in cases of diagnosed medical emergency
in which consent cannot be discerned.
Here is the law, regarding this issue:
1. Violations of bodily integrity constitute physical assault and battery.
2. If battery results in permanent damage and loss of function, then it's aggravated battery.
3. If it involves sexual organs, then it's sexual battery.
4. Genital mutilation results in permanent loss of function - therefore, it's aggravated sexual battery.
5. If it's against an infant, then it's aggravated sexual battery against a child.
This is law. It is not a "theory." It's not just a "good idea" that "should be" law but "isn't yet." It is law. It's the true, valid law, right now, everywhere on Earth. If you're wondering why, you can read our Introduction to Natural Law.
"I agree with all of that, regarding FEMALE genital mutilation. But I don't agree for males."
Then you don't understand Human Rights.
Children are entitled to the integrity of their own bodies regardless of which sex they are.
How Mutilation Harms
"But it's just a flap of skin! What's the big deal? I don't understand why people are getting so worked up about a little flap of skin!"
First of all, the foreskin is not just a random "flap of skin." It's one of the most sensitive places on the entire body.
1. It has over 20,000 nerve endings - making it more nerve-dense than any other part of the body, other than the brain itself.
2. The penis in total has about 25,000 nerve endings. If 20,000 are taken away forever by circumcision, then that means 80% of the feeling in the penis is lost.
3. It plays a key role in sexual intercourse.
Without the foreskin, the glans of the penis is unprotected, and begins to callous, further reducing sensation.
Genital mutilation sabotages sexuality for males just like it does for females.
"But my partner is circumcised, and he has sex just fine He's happy that he was cut!"
He has no basis for comparison.
And it's very commonplace for victims of abuse to try to "rationalize" the abuse that they suffered. It prevents them from having to face the reality of what happened to them. Your partner is using an ego-defense mechanism.
"But I prefer men who are cut! It's more pleasurable for me, and many women share my sentiment!"
Are you aware that that's the same argument made by radical Islamic clerics when they promote female circumcision? They say it makes the woman more "sweet and docile" and "a better wife."
It's not for them to decide - and it's not for you to decide.
The decision rightfully and lawfully rests with the person whose body it is.
The "Religion" Excuse - Debunked
"But my religion requires circumcision. All of my ancestors did it. If I were to let my son(s) remain intact, I'd be breaking a tradition that goes back thousands of years.
Don't "human rights" include the right to freedom to practice my religion?"
You have the Right to Freedom of Religion, to the extent that you respect other people's rights - including their right to bodily integrity.
When your religious practice crosses over into violating someone else's body and sovereignty, then it no longer falls under the protection of "religious freedom."
This isn't rocket science.
If your religion involves lighting candles, you have the right to light candles. But NOT UNDER SOMEONE'S BED.
If your religion involves playing music, you have the right to play music - but not in the middle of the street at 3:00 AM.
If your religion involves body modifications, you have the right to perform them - on YOURSELF, or on a CONSENTING PARTY.
You do NOT have the right to modify OTHER PEOPLE'S BODIES without their consent. That is just MADNESS.
"But without brit milah (circumcision), my son won't be a Jew!"
Shouldn't that decision be his to make? Isn't it up to each individual to decide what religion (if any) he or she wants to follow, or not follow?
We do live in the 21st century, don't we?
"But Judaism is more than just a religion - it's an ethno-religious peoplehood. He doesn't have a choice. If he's born into a Jewish family, he's Jewish no matter what."
But you just said he won't be Jewish if he retains an intact penis.
"Correct. He won't be."
But you just said a child born into a Jewish family is Jewish no matter what.
You can't have it both ways. Either:
A) His religion is his choice to make (in which case you've no right to force it upon him)
B) It's an automatic characteristic inherited upon birth - in which case the condition of his penis has no effect upon it.
Which is it?
"Ummm... he's a Jew no matter what... but will STILL have to circumcise him, to make him a Jew."
That makes no sense.
"OK, fine. He's NOT a Jew until he's circumcised."
Then you have no right to force it upon him. You can teach him the traditions and practices, and once he reaches the age of majority (18 in the USA), he can choose to modify his body in whatever way he chooses, IF he chooses to.
"Oh please! Other religions teach their children to follow their ways, just like Jews do! Are you saying they're all "forcing" their beliefs upon their kids?"
Other religions teach their children their ways, but they don't cut off parts of their children's bodies.
"Some do. Muslims, for instance, they circumcise."
And it's just as wrong and unlawful for them to do.
Anyway, if you're Jewish, there's always brit shalom, a naming ceremony that does not involve genital mutilation.
The "Medical" Excuse - Debunked
"But circumcision isn't just a religious tradition - it's also a medical procedure. Whatever loss of sexual function results from it, is more than made up for by the health benefits."
It seems you don't understand what medicine is.
No, you don't.
Please provide an example of any other situation in which doctors will perform an amputation of a healthy organ - WITHOUT THE PATIENT'S CONSENT.
Go on. Think of one.
"I can't think of any."
Exactly. Because that's not medicine.
Here's how medicine works:
1. Surgery may be performed on a person for two reasons: treatment of disease, and cosmetics.
2. In the case of cosmetic surgery, the consent of the patient is required. A baby cannot, and does not, give such consent. Therefore, it is unlawful to perform cosmetic surgery on babies. This is common sense.
3. In the case of treatment for disease, you need two things: a doctor and a diagnosis.
In many cases of genital mutilation (i.e. those performed as religious ceremonies), the man who does it is not a doctor.
And even when a "doctor" performs it, there is no diagnosis of any disease.
"But circumcision prevents diseases!"
That is not a diagnosis.
If a person wants to cut off part of their body because it might "prevent disease", then they have the right to do so. As long as they give consent for the procedure. Babies cannot and do not give consent.
"But sometimes, surgeries are necessary for emergencies! Sometimes, a person is unconscious, and doctors have to make a decision for them, in order to save their life, or prevent a dire physical complication."
You're talking about emergencies.
A healthy foreskin is not an emergency.
An emergency is a situation in which the person might die or suffer irreparable injury before they gain (or regain) the ability to give consent. You can do emergency surgery on an unconscious person, or a baby, if it's for major, life-threatening ailments where time is of the essence - or to correct a diagnosed malady or deformity. You may, for instance, perform surgery to remove a bullet from an unconscious person who was just shot moments ago, or to fix a major organ defect in a baby. You may not use the emergency justification to give an unconscious person a nose-job or a boob-job.
"But sometimes there is an actual problem. I don't know the exact statistics, but something like 0.1% (or 1 in 1000) baby boys are born with a real problem with their foreskin, and it needs to be removed quickly, to save the child."
In those cases, there is an actual disease, and a diagnosis.
In the case of a healthy foreskin, there is no disease, and no diagnosis.
Do you see the difference yet?
"But isn't it still healthier? Doesn't circumcision keep the penis clean?"
If you don't know how to wash yourself, it says something about you.
All over the world, people know how to wash themselves - except, apparently, in the United States. How does that make you feel? How does it feel to know you're living in the only culture in the world that doesn't know how to keep clean?
"I've heard statistics saying that circumcision lowers the risk of various other problems, like penile cancer."
If this were true, then it would mean we should also cut the breasts off of newborn girls. This would prevent breast cancer.
"Oh come on! Breasts are important organs! You need them to breastfeed!"
So then how about cutting off just one? You can still breastfeed with one breast. And your risk of breast cancer would drop by 50% (since you'd only have half your breast tissue).
"Some women do have preventive mastectomies They find out they're at higher than average risk of cancer, so they play it safe."
But are they babies when it's done? Is it done without their consent?
"What about surgical corrections for cleft palates? That's not an emergency. And it's done without the child's consent."
Cleft palate is a deformity.
A healthy foreskin is not a deformity.
If there is no disease, there is no correction. You need a diagnosis.
No diagnosis = no disease.
No disease = no surgery without consent.
"But it's not that bad."
Of course taking a KNIFE to a BABY'S FLESH is "that bad", and MORE. If you doubt this, then it only proves how brainwashed you are. Think about it:
((( KNIFE ---> Baby ))) = "not that bad." Just LISTEN to yourself.
"But I'm circumcised. And I don't feel any problems. And I want to pass along the tradition to my son(s)."
The only reason you seek to downplay the atrocity is due to the discomfort of the cognitive dissonance of knowing it happened to YOU, and needing a way to justify it having happened. In other words, you were victimized, brutally, and robbed of a part of yourself, and you're afraid to face the reality that you lost something immensely important. Rather than grieve for what you've lost, it's easier to claim the thing you lost was never that important to begin with. This idea is easier to face, as it shields the ego from the realization of loss. It protects you from grief.
To shield yourself from this knowledge, you continue to support perpetrating the same crime on incoming generations. You participate in a deliberate cycle of intergenerational abuse.
Psychologists and social workers will tell you that most forms of abuse are handed down, generation to generation. A parent beats their child, and the child grows up and becomes a parent who beats their child. A molester molests a child, and that child becomes a molester who molests more children. In most of these cases, it's something that's largely uncsconscious, or perhaps addictive - the perpetrator either doesn't realize they're doing it (perhaps they're a drunk who blacks out when they commit the abuse), or feels they have no control over it (in the case of compulsive sexual abuse). Either way, it's not 100% conscious and deliberate.
But infant genital mutilation apologists are unique among abusers, in that they consciously, knowingly, willingly, deliberately, and calmly continue the cycle, with full knowledge of what they're doing. If you're participating in this, then you're a whole new level of psychopath.
You were only a few days old (perhaps even a few minutes), and the very first thing this world greeted you with was excruciating pain, and the permanent ripping away of a part of yourself.
If it was done in a religious ceremonial context, then it was likely the first time you got to meet most of your family. Your whole family was assembled together, for the very first time in your life. It was an occasion filled with love, and joy, and hope... and it should have stayed that way. But instead, your arms and legs were bound. You were strapped down to a table in a spread-eagle position. You couldn't move. A man bent over you. He started messing around with your genitals. And then, the BLADE. Excruciating pain, the likes of which you'd never felt before. And loss. You came out with a major piece of yourself missing. And that absence has followed you for your entire life.
And as a result, you learned, from your very first hours or days in life, to associate love, joy, and hope with excruciating pain and the deepest possible betrayal. And that association has followed you around for your whole life (unless you've done serious healing work - and even then, the healing is only partial).
This is a big deal. This is DEEP trauma. Inflicted in the FIRST DAYS OF LIFE, when you were the most HELPLESS. By your OWN FAMILY. The psychological "lessons" this teaches a developing mind are heartbreaking.
"Oh come on... babies dont remember it. They don't feel it."
This is a psychopath talking. A psychopath who became a psychopath via DEEP TRAUMA. Just take a step back and LISTEN to yourself. Babies don't have feelings? All acts upon babies are fair game? LISTEN to what you're saying!
"But it's true! Do you remember what happened to you when you were that young?"
You don't need a conscious memory of an event in order to remember that event IN YOUR FLESH. Especially when you're just a baby, and your brain structure is STILL FORMING, every experience contributes to the formation of that structure. The trauma of mutilation is written into the very SHAPE OF YOUR MIND. A baby "remembers it" even BETTER than an adult. The adult remembers the sensory data more, the the baby INCORPORATES THE EXPERIENCE more.
If you really believed that babies don't remember or feel anything, and what we do to babies doesn't matter, then it would be legal to have sexual intercourse with babies. After all, "they don't feel it or remember it", so what's the harm?
This is the logic you're inevitably leading to, if you insist on making such a ridiculous argument. STOP IT.
"Crime? Chlid molestation? What? Look, I think circumcision is bad, and it shouldn't be done. But to compare it to an actual SEX CRIME is just too far. These two things are not on the same level."
You're right that they're not on the same level. One is much, MUCH worse.
Let's start by going over some definitions of crimes:
Adults who touch children's genitals with their FINGERS are rightly regarded as sick bastards. Infant genital mutilation involves not only the fingers, but a BLADE. These sick bastards take KNIVES to BABIES, and they cut INTO the babies' FLESH, they DIG IN with the BLADE, and they SLICE OFF AN ENTIRE ORGAN, while the baby is SCREAMING.
A molested child emerges from the experience confused and ashamed. A mutilated child emerges with an ENTIRE ORGAN RIPPED OFF.
This crime is not on the same level as "regular" child molestation - it is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE WORSE. It is EVIL BEYOND DESCRIPTION.
Whatever should be done to "regular" child molesters should be unleashed upon genital mutilators TENFOLD.
IGM violates the basic right to Bodily Integrity. It's a crime - a sexual one.
People who perform it are child molesters.
Those who facilitate it are child traffickers.
And those who support it are accessories to these crimes.
Anyone who participates in IGM, who knowingly facilitates any of the steps in the act, or who provides any kind of support for it, material or verbal, is a violent psychopath presenting a clear and imminent physical danger to others, and is therefore warranted to be apprehended and placed into custody, and held until they can verifiably demonstrate genuine understanding of why IGM is a crime.
Our sexual organs are EXTREMELY sensitive and important - that's why abusing them causes so much trauma. Whatever happens to them goes straight to the brain, and DEEP.
"But babies don't remember anything. We don't remember things that happened to us when we were babies."
So we should be able to do whatever we want to babies, then?
Punch them, slap them? Put them on haunted-house rides at the amusement park? Molest them?
"Of course not!"
Why not? They "won't remember it."
"That's different! That will scar them for life!"
But you just said they "don't remember anything." Which is it? Do babies "remember" things, or not?
"Hmmm... I'll have to think on that."
There's nothing to think on. Babies remember what happens to them. Period.
"I guess you're right. I was wrong.
But still, I don't remember anything from when *I* was a baby..."
You might not remember the audio-visual details, but you remember the experience. The experience is written into the very shape and structure of your mind.
Infants are neural sponges. We absorb EVERYTHING that happens to us at that age, from the tiniest gnat landing on our skin. We feel it all.
And not only do we feel it, but it goes straight into the heart of our learning mechanism. We're shaping our concepts of the world at that age. Our brains are buzzing with activity, trying to figure out "what is this Universe made of, how does it work, and what kinds of things can I expect from it?"
The "data" might be lost. You don't remember what things looked like, or sounded like. But the lessons you learned as a baby shape your mind for the rest of your life. Your understanding of physical reality is built upon your earliest experiences.
What kinds of *lessons* do you think you're teaching a baby, about the universe, when you slice them with a knife, soon after birth?
"Probably some bad ones, I'll admit."
"Like maybe... that the Universe is a dangerous, treacherous place, and can't be trusted. That people - adults, our own family - can't be trusted."
And what kinds of mental illnesses do you think that might lead to?
"Maybe obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)."
Yes. OCD is, at its core, a belief that the "universe can't be trusted."
The United States is the world capital of OCD, and it's also the only country (besides Islamic ones) that practices routine infant genital mutilation.
And we make sure it's done
I was only a few days old when they did it to me. It was one of the very first things this world greeted me with: excruciating pain, and the permanent ripping away of a deeply important part of myself.
It was done in a religious ceremonial context, and it was the first time I got to meet most of my family. My whole family was assembled together, for the very first time in my life. It was an occasion filled with love, and joy, and hope... and it should have stayed that way. But instead, my arms and legs were bound. I was strapped down to a table in a spread-eagle position. I couldn't move. A strange man bent over me. He started messing around with my genitals. And then, the BLADE. Excruciating pain, the likes of which I'd never felt before. And loss. I came out with a major piece of myself missing. And that absence has followed me for my entire life.
And as a result, I learned, from your very first days of my life, to associate the feelings of love, joy, and hope with the feelings of excruciating pain and the deepest possible betrayal. They've been linked ever since.
This is a big deal. This is DEEP trauma. Inflicted in the FIRST DAYS OF LIFE, when I was the most HELPLESS. By my OWN FAMILY. The psychological "lessons" this teaches a developing mind are heartbreaking.
I've struggled with OCD for my whole life. OCD is a feeling that "The universe cannot be trusted." That's what it's made of. And do you see the connection? My parents and family and religious clerics showed me, in my very first days, that THE UNIVERSE CANNOT BE TRUSTED.
I'm sure your trauma was terrible too. But did they do it during your very first days on this Earth, when your brain was at its greatest plasticity? Did they do it to you in front of a crowd of your own kin, as if it were perfectly normal and natural? Did they tell you it was a "blessing" that you should be "grateful" for? Did your entire society conspire to tell you that you have nothing to be upset about? Did they take a BLADE to you? Did they mix the blade with warm, caring, familial feelings?
I'm sure it was bad, so I won't sit here and try to tell you "it wasn't bad." So STOP DOING THAT TO ME.
This is how Moses Maimonides, the Jewish intellectual and physician, expressed it as early as the twelfth century,
“With regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, 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. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally…How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from the outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is to that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but 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. In my opinion, this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision. Jewish men, sexually subdued and readily controlled by their wives, don’t stray into mischief. The power of his member has been diminished so that he has no strength to lie with many lewd women.”
Reasons for this mitzvah
Many reasons are given for this mitzvah. Several of them are:
1. It establishes a sign, affixed in our flesh, that we are believers in the one G‑d.
2. It is akin to a branding that, in days of yore, masters would oftentimes imprint upon their slaves. It acts as a reminder for us that we are in G‑d’s service, and must follow His ways.
3. Sefer HaChinuch explains that just as Jewish souls are different than Gentiles’ souls, G‑d wanted there to be a difference in our physical bodies as well. He explains further that G‑d left this sign for us to make rather than creating us with it, in order to symbolize that just as we can and must perfect our bodies, so too we can and must perfect our souls.
4. Why was the reproductive organ chosen for this imprint?
A. To symbolize that the covenant with G‑d is eternal and must be passed on to the next generations.
B. It weakens sexual desire and pleasure, hopefully giving a person more strength to restrain himself from engaging in forbidden sexual encounters.6 In a similar vein, Nachmanides writes7 that the brit reminds us to only use the male organ in a permissible and positive way.
C. The reproductive organ was chosen, since it is in the merit of our uniqueness and devotion to G‑d that we continue our existence as a race.8
1832: Jean-Francois Lallemand circumcises a patient to cure him of nocturnal emissions (wet dreams).
1845: Edward H. Dixon declares that circumcision cures and prevents masturbation.
1855: Jonathan Hutchinson publishes his theory that circumcision prevents syphilis.
1865: Nathaniel Heckford claims that circumcision cures epilepsy.
1870: Lewis A. Sayre publishes a paper "proving" that circumcision cures epilepsy, and prevents spinal paralysis.
1871: M. J. Moses declares that circumcised Jews are immune to masturbation.
1873: Joseph Bell announces his discovery that circumcision cures bedwetting.
1875: Lewis A. Sayre declares that foreskin causes curvature of the spine, paralysis of the bladder, and clubfoot.
1879: H. H. Kane "discovers" that circumcision cures nocturnal seminal emissions and abdominal neuralgia.
1881: Maximillian Landesberg announces that circumcision cures eye problems.
1886: William G. Eggleston declares that the foreskin causes crossed eyes.
1888: John Harvey Kellogg promotes circumcision for boys to prevent them from masturbating.
1890: William D. Gentry declares that circumcision cures blindnewss, deafness, and dumbness.
1891: Johathan Hutchinson declares that ther foresin "constitutes a harbour of filth and is a constant source of irritation. It conduces to masturbation and adds to the difficulties of sexual continence."
1893: Mark J. Lehman demands immediate implementation of mass circumcision of all American boys.
1894: Remondino says circumcising Blacks prevents them from raping White women.
1894: H. L. Rosenberry publishes paper "proving" that circumcision cures urinary and rectal incontinence.
1900: Jonathan Hutchinson pushes circumcision as a means of desensitizing the penis.
1901: Ernest G. Mark advises circumcision as a method of permanently desensitizing the penis.
1902: Roswell Park publishes paper "proving" that the foreskin causes epilepsy and that circumcision cures it.
1914: Abraham L. Wolbarst publishes manifesto demanding the compulsory circumcision of all non-Jewish children in America. He also claims that circumcision prevents tuberculosis.
1926: Abraham L. Wolbarst theorizes that circumcision prevents penile cancer.
1930: Norton Henry Bare claims that he has cured a boy of epilepsy by circumcising him.
1932: Abraham L. Wolbarst publishes his most widely cited paper claiming that circumcision prevents penile cancer.
1934: Aaron Goldstein and Hiram S. (Inch) Yellen invent and mass market the Gomco Clamp circumcision instrument.
1935: R. W. Cockshut demands that all boys be circumcised in order to desensitize the penis and promote chastity.
1941: Alan F. Guttmacher pushes mass circumcision as a means of blunting male sexual sensititivy. He also falsely claims that a baby's foreskin must be forcibly retracted and the glans scrubbed daily.
1942: Abraham Ravich claims that circumcision prevents prostate cancer.
1949: Eugene A. Hand declares that circumcision prevents venereal disease and cancer of the tongue.
1949: Douglas Gairdner points out the lack of medical justification for circumcision, and baby's lives that could be saved; leading to the elimination of infant circumcisions in the United Kingdom.
1951: Abraham Ravich invents the falsehood that circmcision prevents cervical cancer in women.
1953: R. L. Miller and D. C. Snyder unleash their plan to circumcise all male babies immediately after birth while still in the delivery room to prevent masturbation and provide "immunity to nearly all phyiscal and mental illness."
1954: Ernest L. Wynder publishes his influential paper supporting Ravich's theory that male circumcision prevents cirvical cancer in women.
1956: Raymond Creelman invents the Circumstraint - a device resembling a medieval torture instrument.
1966: Masters and Johnson claim, with no supporting data, that there is no differnce in sensititivity between circumcised and intact penises, misleading parents and men for forty years before being disproven.
1969: Morris Fishbein calls for circumcision to cure masturbation nd nervousness.
1971: Abraham Ravich invents the falsehood that circumcision prevents cancer of the bladdeer and rectum.
1971: Prior to Shoen's involvement, the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus and Newborn issues a warning to the nation that, "There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period."
1973: R. Dagher, Melvin Selzer, and Jack Lapides declare, in their paper titled, "Carcinoma of the penis and the anti-circumcision crusade", that anyone who disagrees with their agenda to impose mass circumcision on America is mentally ill.
1975: Prior to Schoen's involvement, the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision declares, "There are no medical indications for routine circumcisions, and the procedure cannot be considered an essential component of healthcare."
1976: Dr. Benjamin Spock, after recommending circumcision for thiry years, revises his book "Baby and Child Care" to recommend against circumcision. "If I had a baby boy now... I certainly would... leave his poor penis alone."
1985: Thomas E. Wisell invents the falsehood that circumcision prevents urinary tract infections.
1986: Aaron J. Fink invents the falsehood that circumcision prevents AIDS and group B streptococcal disease.
1989: Under the direction of Edgar J. Shoen, the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision reverses its position and declares circumcision "necessary."
1991: Edgar J. Schoen tries and fails to convince European countries to insittute mass circumcision. He tries again in 1997 and fails again.
1991: Aaron J. Fink declares mass circumcision is necessary to prevent sand from getting under soldiers' foreskins.
1993: Gerald N. Weiss declares that the presence of Langerhans cells in the foreskin leads to HIV infection.
1998: Howard Stang, inventor and patent-holder of an infant circumcision restraint, fails to mention this conflict of interest in his article promoting infant circumcision in the Journal of Pediatrics.
1999: The AAP Task Force on Circumcision reverses the policy of the earlier Schoen committee and once again declares circumcision is not necessary.
2002: The Federal agency USAID, in cooperatoin with RHO and the Gates Foundation, reveal plans to export mass male circumcision to deal with the HIV crisis in Africa.
2003: Edgar J. Schoen steps up pressure on the American Academy of Pediatrics to reverse its policy on circumcision, claiming that circumcision prevents AIDS.
2007: Sorrells disproves the forty-year-long Masters and Johnson "theory." The intact penis hs four times the sensitivity. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis, the glans the least.
2007: Morris et al. reprise the prostate cancer scare tactic.
Circumcision is a solution in search of a problem.
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (2010): “After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision, do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand.”
The 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 have corroborated the Canadian Paediatric Society (2004), declaring that circumcision of newborn males should not be routinely performed. The statement firmly declares: “There are no medical indications for routine male circumcision.”
Canadian Paediatric Society (1996): “The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns.” Note that the cost-benefit analysis in this Canadian report ignored diminished sexual function, probably the most serious effect of circumcision.
The Central Union for Child Welfare, Finland (2003): “Circumcision of boys that violates the personal integrity of the boys is not acceptable unless it is done for medical reasons to treat an illness. The basis for the measures of a society must be an unconditional respect for the bodily integrity of an under-aged person. Circumcision intervenes in the sexual integrity of a male child causing a permanent change in organs and has consequences pertaining to both health and quality of life. The circumcision of girls is rightly considered as inhuman mutilation of the genitals and is punished abuse. Also boys must be guaranteed a similar protection by law. According to the opinion of the Central Union for Child Welfare in Finland nobody has the right, on behalf of the child, to consent to operation, violating the bodily integrity of the child, if it is not done to treat an illness.“
The Royal Dutch Medical Society (2010): “There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene. Partly in the light of the complications which can arise during or after circumcision, circumcision is not justifiable except on medical/therapeutic grounds. Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is contrary to the rule that minors may only be exposed to medical treatments if illness or abnormalities are present, or if it can be convincingly demonstrated that the medical intervention is in the interest of the child, as in the case of vaccinations. Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity. There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation.”
British Medical Association (2006): “In the past, circumcision of boys has been considered to be either medically or socially beneficial or, at least, neutral. The general perception has been that no significant harm was caused to the child and therefore with appropriate consent it could be carried out. The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks. It is essential that doctors perform male circumcision only where this is demonstrably in the best interests of the child.”
The British Association of Paediatric Surgeons advises that “there is rarely a clinical indication for circumcision.”
American Academy of Family Physicians (2002) emphasizes the lack of therapeutic benefit and likens neonatal circumcision to a “cosmetic” procedure and expresses ethical concerns about non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision.
The American Medical Association (1999) has called for the re-training of American physicians and improved information to parents in hopes of reducing the unacceptably high rate of non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision.
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) states that children have a right to grow up free of traditional practices that are prejudicial to health.
Doctors Opposing Circumcision web site states, The claims of “potential benefits”, allegedly provided by medically unnecessary, non-therapeutic circumcision, lack any real support from medical science…..Removal of the nerves of the foreskin by circumcision produces a deficit in sensory input into the central, parasympathetic, and sympathetic nervous systems. One, therefore, would expect to find alteration in sexual response. Several recent studies have found this to be the case.
"But they didn't know it was going to become illegal. You can't punish people for doing something that was legal at the time they did it. That's called an "ex-post-facto law", and it's generally considered unjust."
Why does someone need a law to tell them that vicious sexual mutilation of children is wrong?
This is something that you're just supposed to know, with or without formal instructions from a government.
Did they use a knife?
Did they cut into flesh with that knife?
Did they hear the bloodcurdling screams of anguish?
Did they hear those screams from dozens, hundreds, perhaps even thousands of children?
So where exactly does the "I didn't know it was wrong" part come in?
The fact is, if a person can hear such screams, and not know that they're doing anything wrong, then that person is missing a fundamental aspect of being human. It's called empathy. And they're devoid of it. If someone can listen to such screams and not realize that the person they're assaulting is in excruciating agony, then they have no empathy.
And those who are devoid of empathy are called sociopaths.
And those whom this condition spurs to violence are called violent sociopaths.
And we, as as society, have a right, and a responsibility ,to protect ourselves form such people, by sequestering them in custody. We are under no obligation to put ourselves at risk by allowing proven violent sociopaths to roam around.