Does circumcision violate the human rights of baby boys?

Question

Dr. Geoff Hinchley, a British emergency doctor:
“The unpalatable truth is that logic and the rights of the child play little part in determining the acceptability of male genital mutilation in our society.'’

Should this boy have his own right on whether or not he gets his foreskin removed from his penis?
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/12/11/science/11circum.533span.jpg

Answer 1

Absolutely. It forcibly removes a healthy, functional body part from an person unable to consent.

85% of the rest of the men in the world live their whole live with WHOLE genitals. Its only the US (and a few impressionable cultures that we've inflicted it upon, such as South Korea) that does this for non-religious reasons.
http://www.math.missouri.edu/~rich/MGM/primer.html

For those that don't understand the definition of "mutilation" From Dictionary.com "–verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.
1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.
[Origin: 1525–35; < L mutilātus (ptp. of mutilāre to cut off, maim), equiv. to mutil(us) maimed, mutilated + -ātus -ate1]

—Related forms
mu·ti·la·tion, noun
mu·ti·la·tive, mu·ti·la·to·ry /ˈmyutləˌtɔri, -ˌtoʊri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[myoot-l-uh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, adjective
mu·ti·la·tor, noun "

Answer 2

In my opinion, yes. If it's not your body, not your penis, then leave it alone. I have no right as a parent to make a decision for my child that permanently removes a healthy, functioning part of their body for NO MEDICAL REASON. Every human is born with rights. And rights to a whole, intact body is one of them. This right is recognized for baby girls (fortunately female circumcision is illegal in many countries), but not for boys. Which is a ridiculous double-standard. I would want to leave my son the choice on whether he wants part of his genitals cut off or not. That's HIS choice to make as an adult, not mine. Nature intended males to have foreskin. (And girls have foreskin too, it's called the clitoral hood). Baby boys are born perfect - no alterations needed. YES circumcision removes some sexual sensation for a man. The foreskin itself is extremely erogenous, containing 20,000 nerve endings. It was some stupid people that used circumcision as a punishment for masturbation (like the Kellogg's guy!), not necessarily Jews, Muslims, or Christians. They probably played a large role, but I'm sure some atheists or whatever thought the same thing. As long as a man knows how to take a shower, there are NO "hygienic bonuses". Some parent opt to circumcise their children because they didn't do any research on it and do it "just because". Without having a logical reason. Other parents circumcise to "look like daddy" or for some false medical "benefits". I've been actively anti-infant circumcision for years. I'm so used to saying "penis" now that I don't even think about it. :) Not difficult or embarrassing for me. For some people, maybe.

Answer 3

We don't remove tonsils, appendix, wisdom teeth unless there is a problem with them and that is the last option. Nor will a doctor do so with out a high probability of problems on the parents request.

I myself still have my tonsils, appendix, wisdom teeth and foreskin. None of which have ever given me any problems or been infected nor would I want to remove any of them.

My son will be here in a few months, and he will not be circumcised. I however will support any decision he makes in that matter when he is old enough to make an educated decision. And I would probably even pay for it, if he felt that strongly about it. The moral of the story is circumcision is not reversible, all "benefits" have been proven to be myths or of little value, so you have no good reason for doing it to your new born child. The horrible American "Welcome to the World" ritual. It should be illegal, as it was in The Roman & Greek Empires, and a few modern countries today.

AIDS, they need to do more studies with unbiased researchers. But I would like to point out something the CDC put out last week.

WASHINGTON, Dec 3 (Reuters) - Circumcision may reduce a man's risk of infection with the AIDS virus by up to 60 percent if he is an African, but it does not appear to help American men of color, U.S. researchers reported on Monday.

Black and Latino men were just as likely to become infected with the AIDS virus whether they were circumcised or not, Greg Millett of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found.

Answer 4

Yes, without a doubt it violates their rights and should be illegal.

Some of the answers above are amazing - body belongs to the parent huh? Riiiight I can't even respond to that. And the HIV one. Even if circumcision had been shown to significantly reduce a man's chances of getting HIV (which it hasn't), why is it up to the parents to choose? True an infant won't remember the procedure but there are many reasons why it is better for an adult to get circumcised (consent being the most obvious one, pain relief another and the fact the doctor knows how much skin to remove a third). That HIV study only applied to female-to-male transmission (one of the rarer ways), what if the child turned out to be gay or wait for sex until marriage with a virgin? At 15, before a child starts having sex, they could be presented with the information and decide if they would like to be circumcised or not.

Answer 5

Yes male genital mutilation definitely violates the rights of baby boys.

How can anyone justify amputating healthy tissue from a healthy body? That is something right out of the Stone Age!

It was done to me more than 50 years ago and I know that all the reasons given are just made up oldwives tales and similar B.S.

Boys with complete penises are less likely to get "infections" than girls are.

Boys with complete penises are easier to keep clean than girls are.

Mutilating boys will not prevent ANY disease including AIDS or cancer.

TLS: You are beyond belief, your child’s genitals and body "belong" to you? What if a child is a girl? How can the US outlaw female circumcision if the bodies of children "belong " to the parents?

Which way is it? Do children have human rights? Or is the US law against genital mutilations a violation of parental rights? The basic rights should apply regardless of gender.

If your son's genitals "belong" to you then an Egyptian girl's genitals belong to her parents too and they have a right to give her the benefits of circumcision too, just like you have the right to mutilate your son.

love my babies??? said "Does vacinating violate a children's right? No, it's just a medical decision we make as parents trying to determine what's best for OUR children.
To those that say it is, get over your high horse already"

Vacinations do not disfigure babies! Vacinations are not with held from some babies because of gender. Vacinations do not cause discomfort from physical activity decades after. Vacinations do not cause your penis to be so insensitive that you can't feel that it is in the vagina of the woman that has given birth to your three children. Only "circumcision" does all these things.

I was a child of the 50's, we were vacinated against polio, I went through two series of vacinations (injected) this was before the oral. The shots hurt for a short time but they were worth it, thousands of kids were paralized or died of polio, the vacinations were a miracle. Even as children we could see the danger polio posed, the pictures of kids laying in iron lungs were frightening we knew the pain was worth it.

"Circumcision" is no such miracle, to compare male genital mutilation to vacination... you are just so ignorant...

Foreskin "restoration" is proving to be a miracle, even though it can only recover a fraction of what was robbed from me, it has improved my life both for comfort at my livelyhood and for my wife and I, our intimate life is better than when we were first married more than thirty years ago, because of what I can feel now.

love your babies EVEN IF THEY ARE BOYS.

"Circumcision" is mutilation.

Answer 6

Obviously it varies from person to person, but I think it does. Providing that a body part is functioning correctly, I don't believe it should be removed especially when there are so many risks. That's going to be my guideline as a doctor (I'm a pre-medicine student right now). I wrote the following for a mother that was needing help to decide on whether to make the cut, and it helped her. Hopefully it'll help you understand how I reach this conclusion.

I'm against infant circumcision. By leaving your son uncircumcised, if he's not satisfied with it he can always get cut and end up satisfied in the end. One survey found that about half of circumcised guys would have preferred to had made the decision themselves:
http://www.jackinworld.com/qow/q15.html

Circumcision has become less common. Circumcision rates were as high as 90% back in the 1960s and 1970s (that's partly why today's adults are so... brainwashed, I supposed you could say, about thinking that circumcision is better) but they have fallen to as low as 14% in some states. Here are the statistics:
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/staterates2004/

The USA is the last developed nation doing it to a large number of newborns without religious or medical needs. (Europeans, Latin Americans, Japanese, and most Australians, Canadians, and Asians don't circumcise):
http://www.circumstitions.com/Maps.html

Christianity doesn't ask for circumcision, either. In fact, sections of the Bible are harsh against circumcision, and the Catholic Church even condemned the surgery:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_in_the_Bible#In_Christianity

In a medical study, it was found that females are more likely to hit orgasm with an uncircumcised man:
http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/60750.html

The lubricated foreskin (on the inside... like your eyelids) slides up and down during sex and masturbation to stimulate the head (which is why you don't hear of uncircumcised guys needing lube to masturbate).
http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/

Studies have found that circumcision reduces sensitivity (this article also mentions how it has lost popularity in the USA in recent times):
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,285532,00.html

And despite being more sensitive, uncircumcised guys still last in the same six minute range (average) that circumcised guys do:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.00070.x

Circumcision makes masturbation more difficult:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x

Which makes sense, that's how circumcision was promoted in the USA:
http://english.pravda.ru/science/health/27-03-2006/77873-circumcision-0

Increases erectile dysfunction rates:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14979200&dopt=Abstract%7C

If too much skin is removed in circumcision, it can make the penis smaller since the penis needs some skin to expand during an erection:
http://drgreene.org/body.cfm?id=21&action=detail&ref=1125
http://www.altermd.com/Penis%20and%20Scrotal%20Surgery/buried_penis.htm

There's pain involved, often why doctors don't want you in the room when it's done:
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9712/23/circumcision.anesthetic/
http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/1f21e.htm
(you can search online for a circumcision video, too)

Circumcision does not completely stop penile cancer. The American Cancer Society has already confirmed the myth that circumcision = no cancer.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_Can_penile_cancer_be_prevented_35.asp

If circumcision did stop penile cancer, then penile cancer would not be more common in the USA (most circumcised adults) than in some European nations, where circumcision is not practiced other than for medical/religious reasons.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.html

And a new study found that circumcision does not reduce your chances to get HIV/AIDS. Unlike other studies, this one was done in a developed nation; the USA.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22096758/

Of course, there are other risks associated, but those are typically the ones due to surgery. You can research it more here:
http://shorl.com/deprygyfrykiny
http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/circumcision/against-circumcision.html

PS. As far as cleaning goes, it's really simple. For the first years in life the foreskin doesn't pull back. That prevents stuff like poo/fecal matter from touching the head. Later on all it takes it 5 to 10 seconds to pull the foreskin back and rub the head; it even feels good.
http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/circumcision/protect-uncircson.html

Answer 7

I find it totally bizarre that anyone should still claim absolute rights to their minor children. Children have rights, even rights to be protected against their own parents. You cannot put out cigarettes on your child's body. You cannot fail to educate your child. You cannot deny the child food, shelter, or needed medical care. And if the law were just, you would not be able to chop off part of your child's genitals. It's currently illegal to do it to your daughter, regardless off your religious beliefs or cultural traditions.

You are not allowed to mutilate your daughter even if you are in the US temporarily and fear that she will not be marriageable once you get back to your own country if her genitals are intact.

The child's rights should be the most important factor in this debate. You do not determine your child's religion; your child determines that once he is old enough to make that decision, and many children in fact choose a religion other than the one practiced by their parents. This is not rare or even unusual. Why is it all right to irreversibly alter HIS body for YOUR religious beliefs? Sure, it's okay to educate him about your beliefs and attempt to persuade him to follow them. But it's not okay to amputate his foreskin. He can decide himself whether or not he is persuaded by your religious advocacy, but he cannot choose to have a whole body after you have had part of it removed.

ALL forms of infant/childhood genital mutilation should be illegal. No exceptions. Any ADULT who wants to express his own piety by having his foreskin removed should have that right, but to express your piety by sacrificing part of your child's body is totally immoral.

Answer 8

I had a girl, but as far as circumcision goes I'm at a crossroad of it. In away it is something that has been done for years, most men are circumcised. Then at the sametime it is one of those things of what if when he gets older he never wanted it done. Then what if he did want it done, know as an adult he has to go thru it and it will be a lot harder. I guess this is just another thing parents have to think long and hard about just like rather or not to vacinet your child. It never ends (the things to think about).

Answer 9

It absolutely does violate their rights. No one should have the ability to permanently alter your genitals for no medical reason. It's disgusting that this procedure gets justified for the stupidest of reasons like "Oh, I want him to look like daddy!"

And if Daddy was missing his pinky finger would you chop of junior's so they could match? Nonsense.

Answer 10

Definitely not. Does vacinating violate a children's right? No, it's just a medical decision we make as parents trying to determine what's best for OUR children.
To those that say it is, get over your high horse already.