I thought it might be time to stir up another circumcision debate.

Original Message:

I don't know how reliable this information is, as the source is an

anti-circ group of lawyers determined to take away our rights as

parents to protect the health of our children. Can anyone confirm

the veracity of this article?

I know many Circlist members have pooh-poohed my words about the anti-circ menace, but if this article is even only partially true, then we are all in danger. I continue to believe that the best defense is a strong offense: articulate, well-reasoned arguments based on sound medical evidence to require all males to be circumcised. The USA should lead the way.

-------------------

Swedish Parliament Scrutinizes Male Circumcision as a Violation of

Human Rights

SOURCE: Attorneys for the Rights of the Child

August 6, 2001

The Swedish Parliament has overwhelmingly passed a new law to

regulate male circumcision with the purpose of protecting the human rights of the child. The Parliament voted decisively, 249 to 10, in favor of the new law, whose preliminaries also mandate a study to determine what effect the new law will have and whether male circumcision should be considered a human rights violation. The law is in the process of being enacted. Many Swedish Members of Parliament stated that male circumcision violates children's rights. Several Members of Parliament stated that only an outright ban on circumcision of all minors would be consistent with the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child.

This marks the first time the circumcision of males under the age of majority has been officially accepted for study by a national

government as a human rights issue. Sweden's is the first law in

modern times to regulate and restrict the practice of male

circumcision. All licensed practitioners of male circumcision are now

required by law to use anesthesia and to perform the procedure in hospitals or under similar conditions. A temporary exception was included to allow licensed Jewish practitioners of male circumcision (mohelim) to perform the procedure in hospitals or under similar conditions using anesthesia, but only during the first two months of a child's life. Thereafter, ritual circumcisions performed by anyone other than a medical doctor are not allowed. Violation of the law will result in punishment of up to 6 months in prison or a fine of an individually determined amount based on income.

Sweden has a history of pioneering human rights legislation and not one legislator claimed medically unnecessary circumcision was a legitimate procedure. The 10 dissenters objected only because they supported total criminalization, rather than mere regulation, of non- therapeutic circumcision of male children, and without any temporary religious exception.

J. Steven Svoboda, Executive Director of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, stated, "This historic decision by Sweden represents a turning point in history. Again Sweden has demonstrated its concern for human rights. It is regrettable that the initial version of the bill, which would have banned outright all circumcisions of male minors, did not pass. Nevertheless, we congratulate Sweden for acknowledging that males' right to genital integrity deserves serious evaluation as a human rights concern."

In 1982, Sweden became the first developed country to outlaw female circumcision. This law was strengthened in 1998. Following Sweden's lead, many countries including the United States, Canada, and Australia have recently passed laws criminalizing female circumcision. Human rights organizations and legal scholars in each of these countries have pointed out that laws prohibiting only female genital cutting are discriminatory and violate national equal protection laws and international human rights laws. Worldwide, in the last four years every national professional medical association,

which has issued a recommendation regarding routine male

circumcision, has recommended against the practice.

Well,

(you had to go and get me started, didn't you)

Circumcision has already been baned, outlawed and criminalized in the good o'l USA. For females! That's right, by act of US congress, it is a felony to cut the clit, or hood that covers the clit. Totally off limits (hurah!)

Now, where is the equal rights protection for males? Why should doctors be allowed snip and cut little infant boys? The world over, when the medical community has been asked to provide solid evidence as to the health benifits of circ-ing boys, the only conclusions they can give with any validity is the cosmetic effect of it "looking good." Bah!!!

I want my foreskin back. Nature indended for the most sensitive and erotic part of a man to be shethed in protective layer of skin. The foreskin is not a useless bit of skin either, look it up, there are many functions the foreskin preforms.

Write your legislators. Let's not allow gender descrimination that protects females but allows the abuse of male infants to go on!

Got2(sound off on this one)

I have to agree with you, Got2. There's absolutely no sound medical reason for routine circumcision of baby boys, and as practiced in the U.S., at least, could also be considered child abuse, given the lack of anaesthesia for a clearly painful procedure. If we're protecting girls from all forms of genital mutilation, or even milder forms of genital modification, then we must do the same for boys.

That said, I see no reason to deny any male (or female) any modification whatsoever, once they reach majority. Then it becomes THEIR decision, made of their own free will, not one that has been forced upon them by a parent who might be operating from a personal agenda. I can't think of any more common-sense approach than that.

The rabid anti-circ crowd is suffering from a sever case of sour grapes, otherwise known as foreskin envy.

Because you don't have it you are convinced that foreskins are the most wonderful thing ever invented on the face of the earth and that you have been horribly wronged, mutilated, cheated, and othewise molested from not having it.

Get over it, please. Your penis is fine. Circumcision doesn't cause it to wilt, wither, shrink, shrivel, or any otherwise make sex not enjoyable, unless you are one of the ones so worried about not having a foreskin that you have convinced yourself otherwise.

I like being circumcised. A circumcised penis looks great compared to an uncircumcised one.

Circumcision is an honored tradition in this country and in cultures reaching back thousands of years. Its a decision that parents have been making for ever, and one that is properly made by the parents.

Children are children for a purpose -- becuase they need parents to help guide them, teach them, and make decisions for them.

If I ever have a son he will for sure be circumcised.

I just reposted this, I didn't write it.

I am NOT, however, a supporter of RIC. Routine Infant Circumcision. I think that it should be done only if medically indicated, or IF and only IF the boy wants to have it done later on in life, when it is HIS decision.

Parents, guardians, clergy, and Society as a whole have NO right to dictate the state of boy's genitals.

They don't take the tonsils and adenoids and appendix out routinely, now do they? What does a uvula do, at the back of the mouth? They dont' take that out. They don't routinely level teeth or apply braces. They don't automatically cut down oversized ears ... I could go on and on ...

It seems to me that the Penis is just a perfect target, and the perfect excuse for doctors to milk insurance companies for even more money. Go to a doctor with a valid medical claim, though, and you'll get NOTHING.

Well,

Watch it there Bboy. You are painting a lot of people with a broad brush. No, I do not think I have foreskin envy. I just advocate informed choice.

Intresting to note that you did not provide any medical reason or justification as to why "children" should be "guided" to circumcision. Tradition is what you mention. Ok for the Jews it is a big deal, I'll give them that. Ever been to a bris? (Jewish ritual circumscision) Ah, to enjoy cheese and wine after you see a young infant male get his dick cliped. (yeah right!)

So, I take it you like the look of a cut dick. Great! If that's what turns you on so be it. I personaly advocate choice in the matter and want to dispell any of the "medical/health" reasons for circumcision. And you have done a good job in making the case that circ is just about looks.

Circumcision was introduced into this country during the victorian age as a way to curb boy's tendency's toward "self abuse." Ah, glorious masturbation! That's it. End, or beginning, of story.

As for me. Ok I like my dick. It works well and with a little lube, I can have some great 5 fingered fun. I was on display at a few nude beaches this summer and did hear some young gals discussing how they liked cut boys. They found foreskin to be ugly; while they thought the exposed glans looked erotic. Ok, so I'm also in fashion.

However, I think there are two drawbacks to my cut dick. First, I think the body wants the underside of the glans to be protected. Without a foreskin the penis shrivles up against it's self in order to cover the glans with the skin of the penis. I have never seen an uncirced guy's dick do this. So, my flacid penis looks smaller. Call me vain, but I don't like that one bit.

Second, I think the removal of the foreskin makes one more horney. I swear that I feel the wind on the tip of my penis and it makes me horney. Not a bad thing, but a nusance at times. I think I feel more naked and exposed without a foreskin. Now that ain't right for shy o'l me.

Nature intended us to be endowed with a foreskin. Why take that away and mess with nature? Come on Bboy, woulden't you like to know what it feels like to have your foresking sliding back and forth across your dick while having sex?

Got2 (but I don't got a foreskin)

Probably everything you ever wanted to know about circumcision.

http://www.circlist.com/circhome.html

Got2, I think you and I are on the same wavelength. What useful purpose is served by taking away, with no medical reason, that with which nature endowed us? I'm certainly no fanatic about this, as I've had a more than satisfying sex life without a foreskin. But to me, it just seems irrational to remove something that we know has at least a sexual function, and perhaps some others. There's no way I would ever make the decision for any son of mine to cut off a part of his body, just because it's "what everyone's doing", or because I happen to like how it looks. That would be indulging MY views, not helping my son, or allowing him to form his.

Bboy, you've got it exactly backwards when you paint a man's decision not to have his son circumcised as somehow denying him his birthright for his own purposes. It's precisely because he wants to allow his son to retain that birthright -- his foreskin -- that he chooses not to have the operation performed. Once it's clipped, it's gone, and the child has no choice in the matter, but if left intact, the child will retain that choice. I think that's the more desirable path.

I do have a complaint with the anti-circ crowd, but it lies more in their politics than in their position re: circumcision. It has been my observation that it has become populated by a strong contingent of Marxists, which, frankly, makes me suspect their motives. I fear that, like many movements, feminism being a good example, the anti-circ movement is being hijacked, to be used as a vehicle for a larger political purpose. And the last thing we need is another cadre of True Believers.

Some important questions have been opened here, but there seems to be more heat than light being generated. Both the pro and anti circumcision forces in society have become more strident than the evidence warrants for either side.

We need to start with the observation that both parents and society as a whole have a profound interest in the health and well being of children. In the best interests of the child many things, which they would probably otherwise reject, are forced upon them. What child would ever choose to have needles stuck into him for all of the childhood vaccinations. What child would choose to eat spinach? What child would choose to go to school every day? Society demands that certain actions be taken on behalf of children, regardless of their wishes. Society allows parents to make decisions for their children, so long as those decisions do no significant harm to the child. (No society expects perfection on the part of parents, though all would certainly prefer it.)

Should society allow devoutly religious parents to deny modern medicine to their children when such conflicts with their beliefs? The law is ambiguous on this one. Usually parents are allowed to refuse vaccinations for their children, for example, but not to prevent treatment that could save a life. The boundary is sometimes difficult to discern and occasionally ends up in court.

Where does circumcision fall?

Anti-circumcision forces point to the mutilation of the body. Some religious groups reject it for that reason alone. They point to the loss of a sexually sensitive part of the anatomy resulting in reduced pleasure. They point to other possible, but unproven, health benefits.

Pro-circumcision forces also point to somewhat ambiguous health benefits. There is some evidence that the loss of the foreskin, which leads to dryness and hardening of the surface of the glans, aids in preventing transmission of venereal diseases. There is some, slight, evidence that it reduces transmission of AIDS. There is also some evidence that female partners of circumcised men have a slightly lower incidence of cervical cancer. Some, of course, use religious arguments for this position.

Physical appearance is part of both arguments.

Basically, the arguments are not overwhelming in either direction. This seems a good place to leave it up to the parents to make the decision for their own child. Until we have better medical evidence, both sides can honestly argue the rightness of their position.

What is truly in the best interests of the child? We can only assume that parents did their best to make the right decision and, so long as no clear harm is done, to accept that decision regardless of our own feelings.

I write this having gone through difficulties with my own son. My wife and I had decided firmly against infant circumcision. His doctor simply did it anyway without seeking permission! We went to the state licensing board and started an investigation. We filed civil charges against him. We originally tried to file criminal charges, but the District Attorney refused - all three of his sons were circumcised and he thought that all boys should be. The doctor died in an auto accident before any determination was made. My son thinks his circumcision is just fine and doesn't seem to care one way or the other.

Jesus,

If you'd like me to desecrate his grave (the doctor), I'd be more than happy to do so for you. What's a little black magic between friends?