Should male infants routinely be circumsized?

Poll choices
Posted 10 years.


  • Mary Noll - 9 years ago

    There are lawyers that have successfully sued (and won) for their clients in regards to circumcision. Their site is There is also a class action lawsuit for those who have been circumcised against their will as children.

    The only one who should decide about circumcision is the one who owns the penis. Makes you wonder why every guy needs viagra in the US, why so many women don't 'enjoy' sex much, because the foreskin bunches up and hits the 'g' spot on the clitoris.

    Plus the idea of cutting off a baby's most sensitive part of their body with basically no anesthesia is very draconian. Ever wonder why guys seem to have problems dealing with pain? Thank circumcision for that, it raises the cortisol levels in the brain and they never come down. The result is a permanent heightened sense of pain (the original reason FOR circumcision, to punish young boys for masturbation in the Victorian Era-where self pleasuring was considered 'evil' and a 'sin').

    Circumcision is a lose lose lose situation.

  • keepthemintact - 10 years ago

    We in Australia still have 7% of our baby boys being genitally mutilated by these sick paedophile doctors
    Many circumcised doctors have an emotional need to defend their culture of origin and to rationalise their personal deprivation by the creation of medical literature asserting prophylactic benefits of circumcision. On the other hand, in my view their behaviour is rather suspiciously deviant.
    Not to “scare” at all, but I would comment calmly that the day will come (and sooner than we expect) when victims of involuntary, non therapeutic circumcision will be filing lawsuits against physicians and medical institutions and even their own parents just as often and just as effectively as the victims of sexually predatory priests have taken actions (and won judgements $$$) against the Roman Catholic Church.
    One must be aware the only time a circumcision is actually needed under medical reasons is the one in 500,000 births where the child is born with a defective penis, in this case the foreskin is used to repair the damage.
    Given the serious harm caused by circumcision and the lack of medical justification, doctors should have profound reservations about performing destructive surgery that manifestly offends the Hippocratic Oath ("First Do No Harm")
    Thomas Szasz, M.D. wrote:
    “I believe the time has come to acknowledge that the practice of routine neonatal circumcision rests on the absurd premise that the only mammal in creation born in a condition that requires immediate surgical correction is the human male. If the penile foreskin is not merely non functional but a biological disadvantage so severe as to justify its immediate surgical ablation, then surely, it must have atrophied by now.”
    “The prepuce is a common anatomical structure of the male and female external genitalia of all human and non-human primates; it has been present in primates for at least 65 million years, and is likely to be over 100 million years old, based upon its commonality as an anatomical feature of mammals.” (Christopher J. Cold and John R. Taylor)
    The principles of medical ethics require that we protect our babies from pain and trauma. If it is illegal to subject laboratory animals to painful experiences, what does it say about society that would provide greater legal protection to lab rats than to its own children?
    I often think of the paltry amount that the greasy circumciser got from mutilating my genitals without my permission, they are that ignorant not to realise that I would have paid thousands of times more not to have it done.

  • Van Lewis - 10 years ago

    Should female infants routinely be circumcised?

  • Michael Warrior of Love - 10 years ago

    How blinded and brainwashed do you have to be to deliver your beloved and loving child to the knives and penis-skin-crushing thumb screws of those sadistic psychopaths that believe they could continue unpunished with that sadistic torture and mutilation of children's genitals? Those sick pigs that torture children for either profit or to gain religious power or both? How dare to ask such provoking, antagonizing and brain sick question if our male infants should routinely be tortured and mutilated in their genitals or raped with knives? Awakened and enlightened people would not allow this to happen to their children no matter what that the sick circer pricks may tell them to do. They would defend their children and fight for them to death. Is that clear - motherfuckers?

    A better poll or question would be: "Should all those disgusting and sick morons that are mentally and physically capable of sticking knives into children's genitals and get off on tightening that screw that crushes the most sensitive and pleasurable tissue of little boys' penises off, should they routinely go to jail for life or should they routinely be brought to justice by other very effective means so our children are finally save from those disgusting people deceiving genital torturing and mutilating sex criminals whose deranged mental state can be compared with those sick bastards that deliberately torture helpless and defenseless animals.

    This crime committed on innocence by those brutal and heartless pricks should have never happened and we, the exponentially growing number of outraged people who can see through the lies and recognize the psychological and physical harm that is being done by those genital torturers and pleasure forbidding religious fucks, are now joining together world wide to bring an absolute end to this ancient evil barbaric and brain damaged crime and human rights violation.

    Circumcisers be aware, you either drop your knives and torture clamps now or you soon will be tagged as registered sex criminals! We are taking notes of you no matter who you think you are! This disgusting cruelty has no more place in this world and universe and the evil perpetrators are about to lose all the ground they used to stand on. The crime will be stopped by stopping the criminals!!! We do have existing laws against child abuse, torture, mayhem and mutilation and these laws will be enforced one way or the other! We all got enough of your disgusting and bloody lies and that ugly and despicable sex crime you perform on our boys and children in other parts of this world! You still didn't get it? I said: Bye bye People Deceivers! So long Genital Torturers! Later Child Mutilator and FUCK Off SICK PRICK!!!

  • James L Snyder, MD - 10 years ago

    Infaant circumcision is an irreversible, elective procedure which can be performed at any age after the age of consent. Forcing this procedure on infants permanently deprives them of their right of self determination.
    It is a clearly cosmetic operation with no immediate medical benefits. Most (about 90%) men, having reached tha age of consent with an intact penis will not choose circumcision, and only about 3% to 5% will require it for genuine medical indications. Phimosis, or unretractable foreskin is physiologic in childhood until the age of sexual maturity. It will be resolved about the same age as a tight hymen in females, and by the same mechanism.

  • Cyclingant - 10 years ago

    The main consideration here is informed consent. For any operation to be performed there has to be a medical reason. The purported benefits of infant circumcision are illusory. The same argument about reduction of risk of cancer when applied to prepubertal girls' breast tissue for example highlights the nonsensical nature of the suggestion. It would be ludicrous to advocate infant bilateral mastectomy in the general population though there is little doubt that this would reduce the risk of breast cancer from a 1:9 lifetime risk to an infinitesimally small risk. Infants are patently unable to give informed consent and their parents have no right to give informed consent to a non-therapeutic irreversible surgical procedure.

    This example is also helpful as there are obvious parallels between removing sensitive erogenous tissue (foreskins/nipples) for non-therapeutic reasons or based on poor scientific understanding of recent flawed research in Africa performed on consenting adult males.

    The suggestion that parents have any right whatsoever to surgically inflict their religious or cultural norms on the children they are responsible for is ludicrous. Imagine defending a cultural practice of 'beating out the witch' or female genital mutilation? They are both indefensible practices that are no longer permitted in the most countries and rightly so.

    Parents have the right to make informed decisions about operations that may genuinely help their children. For any other reason at all, they have no right to authorise the infliction of damage on anyone else, whether or not they are their parents.

    Children are not the property of their parents to do with as they see fit. They are individuals to be protected and guided towards adulthood when they can make their own decisions. Performing irreversible operations on them before that time is unsupportable and should no longer be supported by the law.

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars

Submit Comment