• The AAP Report on Circumcision is embarrassing junk science in defense of a profitable practice.

    Jews have a proud history of being on the front lines of every fight for equality, justice, and human rights. This generation of Jews needs to stop and ask themselves if they want to continue that estimable legacy or abandon it; to continue to evolve or to regress. Just as in the past, devout Jews have given up the practices of owning slaves, murdering those who work on the Sabbath, murdering adulterers, and murdering rebellious children, it is time for Jews to cease the sexual mutilation of baby boys. Such human sacrifice to an angry God is passé. Forced sexual mutilation is a human rights issue and it is time for modern Jews to continue to lead civilization away from cruelty and darkness, not into it.

  • Dave Saving

    The bottom line is the foreskin has a valid function, which was determined by objective proof by a Canadian pathologist – please see link. Why people still choose to ignore this is disturbing to me. If we view a child’s foreskin as having a valid function, we are no more justified in amputating it than any other part of the child’s body unless the operation is medically required treatment and the least harmful way to provide that treatment. So ultimately this is a human rights issue.
    The 60% HIV reduction quoted in this article is a “relative” reduction. Assuming the African study was correct then the “absolute” reduction is 1.31% at one year. This “protection factor” will continue to drop as long as the person doesn’t wear a condom and remains promiscuous.


  • Survey Programmer

    Circumcision is not harmless. Even when done by a physician or a skilled mohel, circumcision causes damage because it ablates the only moving part of the penis. The foreskin has protective, sexual/sensory and immunological benefits, yet the adverse long-term physical, sexual and psychological consequences to men has never been studied. Men whose genitals were cut as children are speaking out about the harm, which is being documented by the Global Survey of Circumcision Harm. To date, over 1,000 men have responded to the survey, uploaded photos of damage, and posted video testimonies of harm. Four percent of the respondents are Jewish. CircumcisionHarm.org

  • joseph4gi

    So what are you mutilating your kids for then? “Health benefits,” or your precious “covenant?”

    Oh. By the way. The AAP STILL does not recommend infant circumcision. Sure, they dance around the “medical benefits” maypole, and they go as far as saying “the benefits outweigh the risks,” but they STILL say they are “not enough to recommend circumcision.”

    It raises the question; the “benefits” supposedly “outweigh the risks,” but they still can’t recommend it?

    AND the state must pay?

    How does that make ANY sense???

  • joseph4gi

    Hidden in this little gem is an advertizement for Neil Pollock, who is a flat-out LIAR.

    He presents the Mogen technique as something “new and innovative” that he “invented,” when it is actually one of the oldest, perhaps THE oldest circumcision technique. His website is chock full of charlatan misinformation.

    “It is hard to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

    “Dr. Neil Pollock, a Vancouver doctor who specializes in circumcision, explains that the foreskin’s inner lining can act as an entry point for viruses that cause STIs, such as HIV, HPV and herpes, or bacteria such as E. coli, which cause urinary tract infections.

    “When you remove the foreskin, you remove that entry point into the body.”

    Now ask him to provide a single paper that has demonstrably proven with science that any of this is true.

    He will not tell you that this is all pure conjecture, and that it cannot be actually demonstrably proven.

    “The AAP says the foreskin may also “trap” these “pathogens and secretions and favour their survival and replication.”

    Note the “may” hedging in this sentence; there is no actual demonstrable scientific proof for this claim.

    “…the AAP task force found “no statistically significant differences… between circumcised and uncircumcised men in terms of sexual sensation and satisfaction,” and said that “sexual function is not adversely affected.”

    Quoth a medical trade organization whose primary interest is the interests of its fellows, and whose ostensive interest is the well-being of CHILDREN, not adults.

    “We always did this [circumcision] as a sign of the covenant between God and the Jewish peop… however, [the AAP statement] makes it harder for the secular world to pressure us to cease our customs – as was done recently by a German court – when the world discovers that what we have been practising… for religious reasons makes great medical sense as well.”

    Herein lies Pollock’s conflict of interest; is he interested in “health benefits,” or in preserving a cherished tradition that has become ever under fire?

    Or is he merely interested in the millions, if not billions, he has to lose?

    The German court does not exist in a vaccuum, and has access to the same “information” about “benefits” the AAP has, and YET they still decided to condemn it as a human rights violation.

    That is telling of how strong the so-called “medical argument” for infant genital mutilation actually is.

    Readers can read more about Neil Pollock and his antics at circleaks dot org.

  • TLCTugger

    The AAP’s policy panel had no foreskins on it or on immediate family members of panelists. Someone WITH a foreskin would never say that circumcision doesn’t impair sex. What most intact men say is that the foreskin is the best part.

    Amputating the slack from the slinking sleeve of phallic skin changes sex dramatically. The only person with the standing to call for such a thing is the OWNER of the phallus. Proxy consent for an invasive procedure is ethical only when waiting for the patient’s own rational informed consent would lead to harm and less-destructive measures have been ruled out.

    The AAP considered disputed information about adult sexual choices which are IRRELEVANT to infants. The Dutch Medical Association looked at the same data and reported that infant circumcision has “an absence of medical benefits and danger of complications.”

    Foreskin feels REALLY good.

  • Sinead

    Netherlands, Sweden, Finland and Australia are getting ready to bring the hammer down on circumcision as well. As I understand it, non-theraputic circumcision of newborns is actually banned in Dutch and Australian hospitals (unless it is to treat an existing illness). Parents in those countries who are interested in penile plastic surgery for their young sons have to go to special circumcision clinics and pay from their own pocket.

    Many pot-shots have been made about the bay area intactivists being a “vocal minority” and the fact that legislation that would ban the practice in San Francisco (and further south in Santa Monica) failed. However, a quick look at mgmbill.org tells me a luta continua. Circumcision in the 21st century is on a one way bullet train ride to oblivion.

  • Minami

    The AAP is a joke. They say benefits outweigh the risks but state in their report that they don’t know the extent of the risks. Plus, they actually have the nerve to devote part of the report to encouraging insurance companies cover the procedure. It’s because when insurance doesn’t cover it, circumcision rates go down. Nobody’s willing to shell out $300 on penis surgery the kid doesn’t even want or need in the first place.

  • “According to one statement by the World Health Organization (WHO), circumcision “reduces the risk of female-to-male sexual transmission of HIV by approximately 60 per cent.”……(however most of the new HIV transmissions in the U.S. are contracted by MSM (males having sex with males….) so this hardly supports the validity of this claim in a developed country like the U.S. Interestingly enough….Japan is a huge nation and largely NOT a circumcising culture….and yet the Japanese are not dropping like flies from having their natural normal male anatomy intact. Strange that the AAP that had so much to say about infant circumcision and it’s “benefits”…yet they don’t acknowledge that most of Europe does not circumcise it’s boys either and neither Europe or Japan are falling off the face of the earth due to being intact! That is highly suspect. Also “comfortably and painlessly” are two words that DO NOT belong in the same sentence as infant circumcision!!!!!

  • “More and more Jews are choosing to not circumcise their boys..
    (Thank God!) And just as we accept Jews who do not keep kosher or
    observe as we do, we recognize the amazing diversity of practice and
    belief that is part and parcel of our astounding heritage. Genital cutting does not create a ‘mensch’ (a conscious-caring
    individual). Indeed it is more of an obstacle to our natural development
    and [a] source of anger and confusion. Coming from an Orthodox
    background and having lived in Jerusalem, i am very aware that the
    problems of domestic violence and sexual pathology are just as prevalent
    in the observant communities as in the secular. Deuteronomy 10:16 says:
    “Circumcise the foreskin of your heart…” In Hebrew, the word foreskin
    is ‘orlah’… there is an ‘orlah’ covering the ear and the heart…
    What is preventing us from ‘hearing the word of God and opening our
    hearts in love and compassion.. This is the real circumcision that needs
    to occur. and it is a life-time learning ceremony…. ‘Brit Milah’ is the
    Hebrew for the covenant of ‘circumcision’. ‘Mila’ also means ‘word’..
    We can welcome the child with songs and praises and holy words, gentle
    tones, and soft touches and smiles.”

    – Rabbi Nathan Segal, Rabbi of Shabbos Shul, One Rabbis’ Thoughts on Circumcision

  • Here is an annotated copy of the AAP’s policy: http://tinurul.com/aapanno Here is a brief summary of the case against it: http://www.circumstitions.com/news/news48.html#aap12 And the same as a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M_xIRBdJ9I