How IS circumcision of newborns legal anyway?

Question

There seems to be a huge lack of consistency here that I can't explain.

Example: A guy has his infant tattooed. Guy is arrested, tried, and is given 3 years of jail time.

Example: Thousands of parents cut up their newborn son's pefectly healthy penis everyday, and it's perfectly ok.

How is the first a heinous felony, but the second is a parent's right? I don't get this. They're both disfiguring their baby, but only one gets in trouble?

Why are they not BOTH legal or illegal? Why the exception?

Answer 1

I'm not sure. The foreskin is the only body part that parents have the "right" to have surgically amputated from their children without any medical indication for said amputation.



A ban on infant circumcision would just be giving the male genitals the same protection under the law as every other body part of both sexes.



I think it's high time this bronze-aged barbaric practice was abolished.





@ Drixnot - Circumcision doesn't save lives. Actually, just the opposite - about 250 baby boys per year in the USA die from circumcision complications. Look it up.

Also, you don't seem to have any knowledge on the foreskin and its functions. It's not just a "bit of skin", it makes up over half of the total penile tissue and around two-thirds of the penile nerve endings. It's highly erogenous, is made up of specialized fine-touch nerve endings, has a very unique gliding mechanism, and its main function is to increase sexual sensation. It also has antibacterial purposes (preventing infections), and protects the glans, preventing it from keratinizing.

There are types of female genital cutting that are much less severe than male circumcision (for example, it's illegal to so much as pinprick the genitals of a female).

Answer 2

Back in the 70s 95% of the world's children were not vaccinated. That has virtually flipped around so don't assume that the current situation is set in stone. Europe and Japan may soon catch up particularly since the health benefits are so clearly established that the WHO advocates it to fight the African HIV epidemic and the American Academy of Pediatrics has recently started advocating it in a country very much like America (couldn't be more like it). Circumcision has been around for thousands of years but, like eating oatmeal, in spite of the length of time and number of places around the world where it is practised the health benefits were only realized relatively recently. The World Health Organisation only started promoting it late last decade when it became rock solid that it protected heterosexuals from HIV. The American Academy of Pediatrics only started advocating it last month. Give it time and that will probably change. The AAP used to say that there is no medical indication for circumcision at birth . Science has moved on and the AAP just spent the last 5 years checking the research and updated their policy. Ironically the original research showing HIV protection was based on a comparison of places that did and didn't and anti-circumcision activists condemned the research as useless for doing so. Now that randomised control trials have been conducted and the HIV protection is well established anti-circumcision activists argue based on comparing countries. There is a reason that cultural reasons (there are no religious reasons) are not accepted for FGM. It is a misogynistic practise that destroys women's sexual apparatus. By contrast circumcision is just removal of some skin from a male and rather than being mutilating most people think it looks better and rather than destroying sexual apparatus it makes men enjoy sex more (see first link below).

Answer 3

There has been a long standing tradition of carving our boys and not so common tradition of marking with ink. Only because this tradition has lasted a long time is one still allowed and the other not.



We use the term "religion" as a shield for protecting the act in one. The other has no shield.



Both are equally wrong. The individual should have the right to select and choose when/if they wish for their body to be permanently altered. That is why ear piercing is not an issue - take out the earring and the ear heals back up. This does not happen in tattooing or circumcision.

Answer 4

The sole reason why circumcision is not prosecuted

is because certain religions claim it

as a traditional practice.



The exception is because the Jewish lobby

in Congress lobbied against legislation in 1976.



And that this has not been challenged is because

of the smokescreen of ignorance & delusion

that is sadly repeated by some Answers here.



Infant circumcision has only been widespread

in U.S.A. since 1953 because prior to anti-biotics

16% of babies died.



Even now 233 babies died on the table last year

and lot more die of shock subsequently.



The foreskin of a baby boy is sealed and infection

cannot occur if it is left Intact. It is not dead skin.

It's enforced removal is Child Abuse and this is

already illegal. So why no prosecutions.



+

Answer 5

there is a huge lack of consistency seeing that a tattoo is only a surface colouration of a patch of skin whereas circumcision cuts off and removes a section of extremely sensitive skin from a particular delicate part of a baby , if a tattoo earns a parent 3 years in jail i would suggest allowing a child to be circumcised should earn the parent and surgeon 20 years in jail each. circumcision causes infections too and 120 baby boys die every year from circumcision complications , there parents are victims too

Answer 6

I know, it's ridiculous. Genital mutilation is a violation of human rights, regardless if the victim is male or female. The kind of sick pervert would subject an infant to unnecessary amputation beyond my understanding.



It is incredibly painful, the infant or child can't consent, it reduces sexual pleasure. How do I know this? Because I was a victim of forced genital cutting myself, and I hate it.



the reason why it is still legal and tolerated is because the hospitals make easy money off of it. Parents agree to it because of a lack of understanding and the notion that there religion requires it. Of course the health benefits have been disproven and many Jewish people now advocate against it.



Adults can do what ever they want with their bodies, whether it is a tattoo or circumcision. But leave the poor kid as nature/god intended until he can decide for himself what he wants.

Answer 7

Mutilation is an injury that degrades the appearance or function of your body.

+ Female circumcision is mutilation

+ Male circumcision is not



Male circumcision performed by a competent people has been practiced for thousands of years without excessive pain and with no medical or physical or psychological or emotional or spiritual damage to the person.



Since there is no physical or moral reason to prohibit male circumcision then I can only speculate that those who are endeavoring to prohibit this practice (in places like San Francisco) are doing so in order to interfere with those religions that require male circumcision and thereby attacking their (and everyone else's) Freedom of Religion.



With love in Christ.

Answer 8

Yes, there is a huge discrepancy. Legally, infant male circumcision is an unprosecuted sexual assault on a minor. You can't circumcise an adult against their will. Shouldn't children have the same, or more, protection as adults?

Answer 9

It started off as a Jewish tradition, so I'd guess that the Jews themselves made it *"legal"* in this country. It's a shame that the baby boy has no say in the matter. Who knows if he's say yes go ahead and cut me if he could? It's like people getting newborns ears pierced. That kid may not want his or her ears pierced. It's just something that pleases the parents, not necessarily the kids. It's so sad that kids have no say in any of it.

Answer 10

I would think the infection risk from just getting a tattoo would be too high for a baby to handle.



A newborn is 80% water and body fluids. Any sort of tattooing could be immensely toxic to the baby's internal organs.

Answer 11

This has always been amazing to me too. If one leads to jail time, the other should as well. Child abuse is child abuse.



-Connor

Answer 12

Parents are not only allowed to do things to their kids for health reasons, they are required to do it. If a kid needs a blood transfusion to survive the parents can not refuse a blood transfusion even if they are Jehovah Witnesses. So if a kid has severe phmosis and gets recurrent infections, a judge can actually order a circumcision to be done.....So there is reason, if something is medically indicated it not only can be done, it has to be done.



Secondly, we give a lot of leeway as to religious rights in the USA. That pesky First Amendment. But there it is, if you are going to let people practice their faith then you have to let them do things that IN YOU OPINION are "bad" but in the opinion of the vast majority of Americans is not. Comparing that to tattoos is apples and oranges. Most Americans feel tats are kind of low and you never do that to a baby.



Third, facts show that it is easier to keep a circumcised penis clean than one that is not. Keeping it clean reduces the chances of bladder and kidney infections. It also has been shown that women who have circumcised husbands have a lower uterine cancer rate.



Lastly, if you are not circumcised then the tip of your penis is very sensitive. So it does not take much to get off. Not very satisfying to women. You might just go off before you even enter the woman and she will get no pleasure at all. Sex is suppose to be enjoyable for both and having a circumcision helps ensure that women get their share.

Answer 13

Female Circumcision = crime against humanity

Male Circumcision = conformity



There IS a purpose for the foreskin. It helps to keep bacteria and grime out of the urethra so long as it is kept clean and it makes sex more pleasurable. You know that whole "ribbed for her pleasure" thing that condoms do? That's simulating what the foreskin would do. They say the baby can't even feel it, but that's a time in a human's life when his nerve senses are heightened, not numb. The Jews did it as a sacrifice of pleasure to prove ones devotion to God. Christians did it because they thought that it would keep people from masturbating if it wasn't as pleasurable. Circumcision is wrong, and the only excuse society can come up with for it is that it's aesthetically pleasing and that it's conforming to the norm.

Answer 14

In some states they no longer do that. They found out that they were throwing good part away. Ot

Answer 15

I hold that circumcision of male minors is unconstitutional.



If it is illegal to circumcise female minors, there can be no circumcision of male minors, as it is sexist in the extreme and unconstitutional as such.



If parents cannot choose to circumcise female children---they shouldn't be able to do the same to male children; genital mutilation is genital mutilation, regardless of the sex of the victim.



Inflicting genital mutilation on children is child abuse in the extreme, also.





Circumcision is a fraud and a hoax.



A foreskin is not a birth defect; it is a birthright.



ERIC

Answer 16

Because despite our large degree of success in American society, Jews are still considered in many ways a protected minority. Any "infringement" on this ritual is considered anti-Semitic. I suppose it hasn't occurred to the people who use that argument that protecting Jewish babies from genital cutting is not anti-Semitic.

Answer 17

It's more hygienic. Even when circumcised, bacteria still collects around the tip, so you can imagine how that compounds when there are folds of skin. No, this doesn't always come off with soap. One such germ is the HPV virus.



It's the parents' rights to do what they think is best. The last thing we need is the penis patrol cruising through hospital nurseries.



I do not understand why anyone would really care, as it does not add to size, sensation and why would you want a permanent clump of dead skin anywhere on your body? That's all a foreskin is. Does hair have sensation? No, it's dead skin, too, but at least you can style it.

Answer 18

Circumcision has some significant health benefits, although I personally disagree with some of the reasons for doing it, it does seem to be a positive choice. I was circumcised at birth and have never experienced any problems resulting from it (my only ever sexual health issue was determined not to have been caused by my circumcision). I included some additional sites, both for and against male circumcision, in case you want to know more.

Answer 19

Circumcision saves lives and tatoos do not.



There is no such thing as a female circumcision, the procedure that term is applied to is actually an amputation .. they take allot more than a bit of skin.



add - Its more than just the Jews, I'm not jewish and the males in my family are cut. Whenever the topic comes up they say they are happy with it.

Answer 20

Tattoo cause ink Poison , circumcision is a Jewish right from God, in the old testament.

Answer 21

Circumcision has been a religious practice for thousands of years.



There is a minor health benefit that would have been more significant in ancient times of poor hygiene.

Answer 22

Only under the guise of religious freedom could the genital mutilation of an infant become socially acceptable.

Answer 23

A guy has his infant tattooed - increasing his risk of infection and complications.

Thousands of parents "cut up their newborn son's pefectly healthy penis" - REDUCING his risk of infection and complications.



You need only be conscious and raised in post-Bronze Age civilization to understand this.

Answer 24

It's for religious purposes.

Answer 25

Chics like the mushrooms



They hate uncut guys



reason enough.

Answer 26

LIberals told us that babies have no rights. Mommy can do whatever she wants.

Answer 27

One is a medical procedure that has been practiced for years. The other serves no purpose whatsoever. Hope this helps

Answer 28

abortion is legal. Need i say more?