Should Circumcisions On Babies Be A Crime? It's a crime if you amputate the sexual anatomy off of a girl. Why shouldn't it also be a crime if you amputate the sexual anatomy off of a a boy? www.intactamerica.org & www.jewishcircumcision.org
http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish-shalom.html

Surely cutting off healthy body parts from babies is already illegal. If a specific law is needed to cover the sex organs of male babies because people are cutting on them, then a law to protect boys cannot come fast enough.

Simply put, circumcision is genital mutilation and torture. It should be outlawed, except for medical reasons, or until of legal age to decide if you want to be sexually butchered or not.

Circumcision in Christianity

If you are a Christian, you are entirely free of any religious reasons for circumcision. In fact, historically, Christians have been specifically forbidden to practice circumcision. I suspect that when some misinformed Christians imagine they have a religious reason for circumcision their children, they are really just grasping for additional excuses to follow the false medical indoctrination they have received their entire lives.
Christians who mistakenly think that they have religious justification for circumcision ought to read the new testament. Here it is clear that the early Christian church, under the guidance of ST. Paul, abolished circumcision. Throughout his epistles, St. Paul took every opportunity to condemn circumcision, as the following quotations prove:

“Behold, I, Paul, tell you that if you be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to you.(Galatians 5:2)

And even those who advocate circumcision don't really keep the whole law. They only want you to be circumcised so that can brag about it and claim you as their disciples. (Galatians 6:13)

For there are many who rebel against right teaching; they engage in useless talk and deceive people. This especially true for those who insist on circumcision for salvation. They must be silenced. By their wrong teaching, they have already turned whole families away from the truth. Such teachers only want your money(Titus 1:10-11)”

It is true that Jesus was probably circumcised, but this is because his parents were Jews. Jesus was denied any choice in the matter. Besides, Christians are hardly required to copy every thing that happened to Jesus. Jesus never advocated circumcision. After, all the earliest Christians-- ones who actually walked with Jesus-- abolished circumcision:

“His disciples said to him: is circumcision useful or not? He said to them: If it were useful, their father would beget them from the mother (already) circumcised. But the true circumcision in the Spirit has proved useful in every way.(2)”

The founders of Christianity believed that God himself condemned circumcision as a blasphemy invented by foolish men. The New Testament Apocryphal Book of Esra reports the word of God, which came to Esra, the son of Chusis, I the days of Nebuchadnezzar thus:

“when you bring offerings to me, I will turn my face from you; for your feasts and new moons and circumcisions of the flesh I have not asked(3)”

Early Christians took the abolition of circumcision very seriously, and the early Church quickly passed laws banning circumcision under the penalty of death. The original church laws against circumcision read:

“Roman citizens, who suffer that they themselves of their slaves be circumcised in accordance with Jewish custom, are exiled perpetually to an island and their property confiscated; the doctors suffer capital punishment. If Jews shall circumcise purchased slaves of another nation, they shall be banished or duffer capital punishment(4)”

The Church was also very concerned about Jews circumcising Christians or citizens of any other sect. Consequently, they passed laws protecting people from such an assault. The Church law states:

“Jews who circumcise a Christian or commit him to be circumcised, their property shall be confiscated and they shall be perpetually banished.(5).

All forms of sexual mutilation-- both circumcision and castration-- have been banned by the Church as insults to God. According to the teachings of the early church, circumcision is blasphemy because it implies that God made a mistake when he created the human body. The Apostolical Cannons of the Church state

“Canon XXII
He who has mutilated himself, cannot become a clergy man, for he is a self-murder, and enemy to the workmanship of god.

Canon XXIV
If a layman mutilate himself, Let him be excommunicates for three years, as practicing against his own life.(6)”

The enlightened holy men who worked hard to establish, spread and safeguard Christianity strongly condemned circumcision. There where the early Fathers of the Church, such as St. Augustine, who wrote:

“Accordingly, when you ask why a Christian is not circumcised if Christ came not to destroy the lay, but to fulfill it, my reply is that a Christian is not circumcised precisely for this reason, that what was prefigured by circumcision is fulfilled in Christ. Circumcision was the type of removal of our fleshy nature, which was fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ, and which the sacrament of baptism teaches us to look forward to in our own resurrection. The sacrament of the new life is not wholly discontinued, for our resurrection from the dead is still to come; but this sacrament been improved by the substitution of baptism for circumcision, because now a pattern of the eternal life which is to come is afforded us in the resurrection of Christ, wear as formerly there was noting of the kind.(7)”

The other great Church Fathers, Such as St. Cyril(8), St. Jerome(9), John Chrysostom(10), St John of Damascus(11), St. Justin Martyr(12), Lectantius(13), Origen(14), Tertullian(15), and St. Ambrose(16), Reaffirmed the ban on circumcision for Christians. Origen said quite plainly:

“The rite of circumcision... which began with Abraham.. was discontinued by Jesus who desired that His Disciples should not practice it(17).”

Speaking of circumcision, St. Ambrose wisely observed:

“Nature has created nothing imperfect in man, nor has she bade it be removed as unnecessary(18).”

Over the centuries, the Catholic Church has passes many laws banning circumcision of children and adults(19). Martin Luther Preached against circumcision on many occasions(20). Even more recent branches of Christianity have taken a firm stand against circumcision. For instance, the holiest scriptures of the Mormons, the Book of Mormon(21) and the Doctrine and Covenants(22), both condemn and forbid circumcision. Thus, the traditional Christian response to circumcision has been to reject it as an insult to the wisdom of God in designing the human body.

Further Regarding Judaism

If a Jew was circumcised in a hospital as many are today: do you think they should be denied the right to a religious circumcision? A consenting adult who has reviewed their faith could make this decision on their own giving both religious freedom or the freedom to genital intactness for the individual. Would it not be better to discourage non consenting infant circumcision in a non religious hospital setting?

Further more some research I have come across seems to question the tradition of circumcision as a tenant of Judaism.
Most people assume that circumcision has always been a part of Jewish life. In Genesis 17, we read that the Lord appeared to Abraham when he was ninety-nine years old and made a covenant with him, agreeing that he would be the God of the Jews and the Jews would worship no other god but him. To Seal the bargain. Jehovah is reported to have said to Abraham:

“For Your part, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after your, generation by generation. This is how you shall keep my covenant between myself and your descendants after you: circumcise yourselves every male among you. You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between us. Every male among you in every generation shall be circumcised on the eighth day, both those born in your house and any foreigner, not of your blood but bought with your money. Circumcise both those born in your house ans bought with your money.”(genesis 17:9-19)

Biblical scholars, however, have known for a long time that this passage was never in the original Bible. It was added about 500 B.C., over one thousand years after the time of Abraham. Scholars David Rosenberg and Harold Bloom have published a full translation of the original version of Genesis, which dates from about 950 B.C. Here, Chapter 17 is conspicuously absent. All we read is that

“it was that day Yahweh cut a covenant with Abram:”I gave this land to your seed, from the river of Egypt to the great river, Euphrates—of the Kenite, and Kenizzite, the Kadmonite; of Hittite, the Perizzite, the Rephaim; of the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Girashite, the Jubisite(23)”

As you can see, there is no mention of circumcision as a sign of this bargain. Along with biblical scholars, the only conclusion is that circumcision was never originally part of Judaism. Why, then, was circumcision incorporated into priestly Judaism?
Rabbi and historian Lawrence A. Hoffman explains that by the late fifth century B.C., at the time of the Jews from Babylonian captivity, the priest hood tried to confirm their status as the dominant political force among the Israelites. (24) they did this by instituting a temple-centerd sacrificial cult into which newborn males were initiated by circumcision. They created the Abrahamic circumcision myth and inserted it into the most important part of Genesis, pretending that it had been there all along. The priesthood maintained their grip on power until about A.D. 71, when they were overthrown. Circumcision has remained a Hebrew practice ever since.

There is many outrages things in the bible that you would never consider doing. The only reason people turn to the bible for circ is because they look to validate their own arbitrary way of life. If they had slaves they would turn around and say it is the bible. If they executed people for minor Sabbath violations they would say its int he bible. They pick and choose what ever it is they need to validate their arbitrary values.

References:

Gospel of Thomas 53. In: Schneemelcher W, Wilson R. Mcl (eds). 2 vols. New Testament Apocrypha. Chambridge: J. Clkarke& Co; louisville, Ky: Westminister/John Knox Press. 1992-1992. Vol.2, pp.125
Esra 5:30-31. The Fifth and Sixth Books of Esra 5:30-31. The Fifth and Sixth Books of Esra. In: Schneemelcher W, Wilson R. Mcl (eds). 2 vols. New Testament Apocrypha. Chambridge: J. Clkarke& Co; Louisville, Ky: Westminster/John Knox Press. 1992-1992. Vol.2, pp.125
Paulus, Sententiar 5:22:3-4. In: Linder A. (ed). The Jews in roman Imperial legislation. Detroit: Wayne State University press; 1987. pp. 117-20.
Collectio Tripartita, book 1: from the codex. Title 9, translation 70. Linder A (ed). The Jews in the Legal Sources of the Early Middle Ages. Detroit: Wayne State University Press; 1997. p.49.
The canons of the holy and altogether august apostles. In: percival HR (ed). The seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church. Vol.14 of: A select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers of the Christian Church 2nd series. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; 1900. p.595.
St. Augustine. Reply to Faustus the Manichaean. Book XIX. Paragraph 9. In: Dods M (ed). The Works of Aurelius Augustine, Bishop pf Hippo. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark. 1872. vol. 15, p. 334
St. Cyril. The Catechetical Lectures. In: Schaff P. Wace H (eds). A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers of the Christian Church. Second Series. 14 vols. New york: the Christian Literature Company. 1894. vol. 7 p. 30
St. Jerome. Epistola XIX: De vera circumcisions. In: Migne JP (ed). S. Eusebii Hieronymi, Opera omnia. Petrologiae cursus completes. Paris: n.p.; 1846. vol. 11 , pp. 188-210
St. John Chrysostom. Discourses Against Judaizing Christians Translated by Paul W. Harkins. Washington, DC; The Catholic University of America Press; 1979.
John of Damascus. Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. Chapter XXV. Concerning the Circumcision. In: Watson, Pullan L (eds). A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers of the Christian Church. 2nd series. 14 vols. New York: The Christian Literature Company. 1894. vol 9, p 97.
St. Justin Martyr. Dialogue with trypho. In:Falls TB (ed). Writings of Saint Justin Martyr. New York: Christian heritage; 1948. pp. 147-368[here, pp. 171-84,212-9]
Lactantius. The Dicine Institutes, XVII. Of the superstisions of Jews, and their hatred aganst Jesus. In: Roberts A, Donaldson J (eds). The Ante-Nicene fathers. 10 vols. Buffalo: The Christian Literature Company; 1886. vol. 7 , pp.118-9.
Origen. De Principiis, 4.3 In: Butterworth GW (ed). Origen on First Principals. London: Society for promoting Christian Knowledge. 1936. p 293.
Tertullian. Adversus Iudaeous II, 13-III. In: Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera, Paris II. Opera Montantistica. Turnholti: Typographi Brepols; 1954. pp. 1344-9.
St. Ambrose. Ambrose to Constantius. In: Beyenka MM (trans). Saint Ambrose Letters. New York: Fathers of the Church. 1954. pp. 90-100.
Saint Ambrose. Ambrose to Horontianus. In: Beyenka MM (trans). Saint Ambrose Letters.New York: Fathers of the Church. 1954. pp. 251-4.
Origen. Against Celsus 22. In: the Ante-Nicene fathers. 10 vols. Buffalo: The Christian Literature Company, 1886. vol. 4, p. 405.
St. Ambrose. Ambrose to Clementianus. In: Beyenka MM (trans). Saint Ambrose letters. New York: Fathers of the Church. 1954. pp. 405-9[here, p. 407].
Grayzel S. The Church and the Jews in the XIIth Century. Vol. 2, ed K.R Stow. Detroit, Mi: Wayne State University press; 1989. pp. 246-7.
Linder A (ed). The Jews in the Legal Sources of the early Middle Ages. Detroit: Wayne State University press; 1997. pp. 28, 35, 38, 49, 52-8, 73, 84, 87, 104, 106, 119-9, 127, 133-6, 141-4, 147, 155-8, 170, 172, 213, 214, 226, 233, 238, 242-4, 248-53, 257, 260, 264, 268, 270, 274, 278, 285, 290, 295, 314, 351, 406, 409, 413, 416, 485, 488, 499, 519, 543, 576-7, 583, 587, 612-3, 617, 619-20, 636, 656, 658, 669, 670, 679.
see: Pelikan J, Oswald HC, Grimm HJ, Lehmann HT (eds). Luthers Works. 55 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress press; 1971. vol. 2, p. 361; vol. 47, pp. 88, 152-9; vol. 54, p. 239.
Moroni 8:8. The Book of Mormon. Translated by Joseph Smith First published in 1830. Salt Lake City: the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1921. p516.
Section 74:2-7. Doctrine and Covenants. Salt Lake City: Desert News Company; 1880. pp. 260-1
Rosenberg D, Bloom H (trans and eds). The Book of J. New York: Grove Weidenfeld;1990. p.79.
Hoffman LA. Covenant of Blood: Circumcision and Gender in Rabbinic Judaism. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press; 1996.

Physical integrity is the the fundamental right to ones own body, a right that was repeatedly violated with the implementation of mass industrialized, non-consenting, non-therapeutic male infant circumcision in the Unites States. A wide range of surgical complications occur in 2-10% of the cases.(1) Since there are approximately 120 million circumcised men in the United States today, it stands to reason that there are millions of men who suffer daily from the effects of these botched circumcisions. These are the men who can benefit most form the work at Foregen.

Many Americans are surprised to hear that circumcision (the surgical removal of the foreskin) is uncommon in the western world. Foreigners are often shocked when they first hear that the practice of circumcision even exists in the United States. Circumcision was first introduced in the United States by an anti-sexual Victorian initiative which began during the 1830’s. Numerous publications from the 1830’s to times even as late as the 1970’s had advocated for circumcision as a means to prevent masturbation, and permanently desensitize the penis.(2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12)

Circumcision advocates quickly moved on to manufacture a number of outrageous health claims. These claims were tailored to the fears and anxieties of the day. Circumcision has been claimed to cure epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, elephantiasis, tuberculosis, eczema, bed-wetting, hip-joint disease, fecal incontinence, rectal prolapse, wet dreams, hernia, headaches, nervousness, hysteria, poor eyesight, idiocy, mental retardation, insanity, strabismus, hydrocephalus, clubfoot, cancer, STD’s, UTI’s, ect.(13) Doctors were eager to claim that they could cure many of these aliments,conditions and diseases because there were no treatments available then. Even though all of these claims have been throughly discredited, circumcision has remained a solution in search of a problem ever since. Many Americans are surprised to find out that female genital cutting (FGC) shares a strikingly similar history in the United States.(5,14,15,16,17,18,19) FGC was even covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield until 1977. Nowadays, many forms of FGC are now considered forms of female genital mutilation (FGM), which are banned in all western countries.

Perhaps the most shocking fact is that circumcision continues to be practiced in the United States even though no official western medical organization in the world recommends it. The Royal Dutch Medical Society, The British Medical Association, the Canadian Pediatric Society, and the Royal Australian College of Physicians have all made official policy statements against circumcision. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Urological Association all do not recommend circumcision, and are also in agreement that there are no proven benefits.

For some reason this information is not making it to parents. Studies have shown that doctors provide parents with almost no accurate or useful information about circumcision. One study showed that 40% of parents believed that their doctors failed to provide enough information, 46% reported that their doctors failed to give them any medical information at all, and 82.8% of parents regretted their decision they made within the first six months of their son’s life.(20) Another study found that physicians were less likely to circumcise their own sons.(21) This suggests that doctors are very well aware that circumcision is a non-therapeutic surgery (in short, a ritual); but they do not appear to share this knowledge with parents. A busy physician can supplement their income by as much as $60,000 per year from circumcision surgeries alone.(22) This incentive can cloud a physician’s judgment when it comes to providing parents with information about circumcision.

Many parents are surprised to hear that anesthetics are used in only a minority of cases.(23) The use of local anesthetics significantly drives up the costs of surgery. When anesthetics are used, they can only reduce the pain. Infants can not be given general anesthesia because of the medical risks involved. In the recent past, anesthesia was rarely used, if ever. Because of this, circumcision has always been an extremely traumatizing experience causing an array of short and long term behavioral problems, including altered perceptions, and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)(24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35), and a possibly self destructive behavior(36,37). Many circumcised men, some of whom are doctors, experience a strong denial of loss which in turn fuels an emotional compulsion to repeat the trauma to normalize their loss.(38,39,40,41,42)

What is the foreskin? is a question that many Americans would have trouble answering. Information about the foreskin is virtually absent during discussions of anatomy in biology classrooms, and yet, the foreskin provides a well-documented set of crucial sensory, protective, immunological, hygienic, and sexual functions. The foreskin is a double fold of skin that is twice as big as its appearance. It can make up to 80% or more of the penile skin covering, and includes around 12-20 square inches of skin (the size of a 3×4 or a 4×5 index card!)(43,46), and in turn includes a specialized sheet of dartos muscle(44)

One of the functions of this mobile skin system is to glide up and down the shaft of the penis in order to facilitate non-abrasive stimulation during sexual activity without any need for artificial lubricant. This frictionless gliding mechanism is the principal source of stimulation for the intact penis and facilitates non-abrasive intercourse.

The neuro-anatomy of the penis has been rigorously studied by respected anatomists of all kinds. The component tissues that comprise the foreskin are richly innervated with the greatest quantity and variety of sensory nerve endings than any other part of the penis.(45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53) Many people are surprised to discover that the glans or “head” of the penis is actually the least sensitive part.(46,52,53)

To no surprise, this information was corroborated in a 2006 study which measured the sensitivity of all the parts of the penis. Researchers used an extremely sensitive pressure sensing probe while each test subject, whose view was blocked with a screen, reported a sensation of touch. To demonstrate precision they took each measurement multiple times. The results were statistically consistent. They concluded:

“Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision were more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis[...] The glans in the circumcised male is less sensitive to fine-touch pressure than the glans of the uncircumcised male[...]The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface [...] When compared to the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis, several locations on the uncircumcised penis that are missing from the circumcised penis were significantly more sensitive.”(53)

The foreskin, like the eyelid, also serves an important set of protective and immunological functions. The foreskin protects the delicate glans of the penis and puts the urethra at a distance form its environment protecting it from foreign contaminants of all kinds. While simultaneously shielding the penis from injury. The foreskins inner fold and the glans of the penis are comprised of mucous membrane tissue. These are also present in your eyes, mouth, and all other bodily orifices including the female genitals. These mucous membranes perform many immunological and hygienic functions. Certain components such as Langerhans cells(54), plasma cells(55), apocrine glands(56), and sebaceous glands(57), collectively secrete emolliating lubricants(58) rich in enzymes such as lysosomal enzymes, cathepsin B, chymotrypsin, neutrophil elastase, immunoglobulin, and cytokine(59,60) whose function is to sequester and “digest” foreign pathogens. The foreskin is also responsible for the production, retention, and dispersal of pheromones such as androsterone(61). In time we will discover even more information about the foreskin and its functional components.

The intact penis is naturally clean and maintains a level of hygiene that is optimal when compared to a penis that has been altered by circumcision. In fact, a myriad of rigorously controlled studies performed by objective researchers among racially and socioeconomically homogeneous study groups in developed urban settings have shown that circumcision is either often associated with an increased risk of bacterial infections, viral infections, and major STD’s, or no significant diffrence. (62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73).

Needless to say, circumcised men have been denied normal bodily functions associated with anatomically correct genitalia. Foregen is working tirelessly to restore physical integrity and emotional wellbeing to circumcised men who desire genital intactness. Visit Foregen.org and dontate to support the cause.

Refrences:
(1)Williams, N; L. Kapila (October 1993). “Complications of circumcision”. British Journal of Surgery 80 (10): 1231-1236.
(2) Lallemand C-F. Des Pertes Seminales Involontaires, 3 vols. Pasis: Becht Jeune 1836, 1839, 1842. Vol1.,pp.463-1: vol2., 70-162; vol. 3,.pp266-7,280-9
(3) Dixon EH. A Treatise on Diseases of the Sexual organs. New York: Burgess, Stringer & Co. 1845. pp.158-65
(4) Moses MJ. The Value of circumcision as a hygienic and therapeutic measure. New York medical journal 1871 Nov;14(4):368-74
(5)Kellogg, J.H. (1888). “Treatment for Self-Abuse and Its Effects”. Plain Facts for Old and Young. Burlington, Iowa: F. Segner & Co. Plain Facts for Old and Young (1881 edition) at Project Gutenberg
(6) Hutchinson J. On Circumcision as preventive of masturbation. Archives of surgery 1891 Jan;2(7);267-9
(7) Remondino PC. Negro rapes and their social problems. National popular review 1894 Jan;4(1) 3-6
(8) Cockshut RW. Circumcision. British Medical Journal 1935 Oct 19;2(3902):764
(9) Guttmacher AF. Should the baby be circumcised? Parents Magazine 1941 sept; 16(9):26,76-8
(10) Miller RL. Snyder DC. Immediate circumcision of the new born male. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1953, Jan;6 (1):1-11
(11) Fishbein M. Sex hygiene. In: Fishbein M(ed). Modern Home Medical Adviser. Garden City, New York Doubleday& Company:1969. pp. 90. 119.
(12) M. F. Campbell, “The Male Genital Tract and the Female Urethra,” in Urology, eds. M. F. Campbell and J. H. Harrison, vol. 2, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1970),1836.
(13) F. A. Hodges, “Short History of the Institutionalization of Involuntary Sexual Mutilation in the United States,” in G. C. Denniston and M. F. Milos, eds., Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy (New York: Plenum Press, 1997), 35.
(14) Robert Tuttle Morris, M.D. Is evolution trying to do away with the clitoris? American Association of OB/GYNs Vol.5, 1892, pp.288-302
(15) T. Scott McFarland, M.D. Circumcision of Girls. Journal of Orificial Surgery. Vol.7,July 1898,pp.31-33
(16) Benjamin E. Dawson, A.M., M.D. Circumcision in the Female: Its Necessity and How to Perform it. American Journal of Clinical Medicine. Vol.22, No. 6, June 1915, pp.520-525
(17) Belle C. Eskridge M.D. Why not circumcise the girl as well as the boy? Texas State Journal of Medicine Vol. 14, May 1918
(18) Mc Donald, C.F., M.D. Circumcision of the female. General Practitioner Vol. 18 No3, Sept 1958, pp.98-99
(19) W.G. Rathmann M.D. Female Circumcision: Indications and a new Technique. General practitioner Vol. 20, No.3, Sept 1959, pp.115-120
(20) Adler R, Ottaway S, Gould S. circumcision: We have heard from the experts; now let’s hear from the parents. Pediatrics 2001 Feb;107(2):E20
(21) Topp, S. (1978, January). Why not to circumcise your baby boy. Mothering, 6, 69-77.
(22) Fleiss, Paul M.D. What your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision. Warner books. New York. Sept 2002.
(23)Stang , M.J., & Snellman, L.W. (1998). Circumcision practice patterns in the United States. Pediatrics, 101(6)
(24)Gunnar MR, Fisch RO, Korsvik S, Donhowe JM. The effects of circumcision on serum cortisol and behavior. Psychoneuroendocrinology 1981; 6(3):269-75.
(25) Porter FL, Miller RH, and Marshal RE. Neonatal pain cries: effect of circumcision on acoustic features and perceived urgency. Child Dev 1986;57:790-802.
(26) Gunnar MR, Connors J, Isensee, Wall L. Adrenocortical activity and behavioral distress in human newborns. Dev Psychobiol 1988;21(4):297-310.
(27) Anders TF, Chalemian RJ. The effects of circumcision on sleep-wake states in human neonates. Psychosom Med 1974;36(2):174-9.
(28) Marshall RE, Stratton WC, Moore JA, et al. Circumcision I: effects upon newborn behavior. Infant Behavior and Development 1980;3:1-14.
(29) Marshall RE, Porter FL, Rogers AG, et al. Circumcision: II effects upon mother-infant interaction. Early Hum Dev 1982; 7(4):367-74.
(30) Lee N. Circumcision and breastfeeding. J Hum Lact 2000;16(4):295.
(31) Anand KJS, Hickey PR. Pain and its effects in the human neonate and fetus. New Engl J Med 1987;317(21):1321-9.
(32) Boyle GJ, Goldman R, Svoboda JS, Fernandez E. Male circumcision: pain, trauma and psychosexual sequelae. J Health Psychol 2002;7(3):329-43.
(33) Taddio A, Katz J, Ilersich AL, Koren G. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. Lancet 1997;349(9052):599-603.
(34)LaPrairie Jamie L. Murphy Anne Z. Neonatal Injury Alters Adult Pain Sensitivity by Increasing Opioid Tone in the Periaqueductal Gray. Front Behav Neurosci 30 September 2009.
(35) Rhinehart J. Neonatal circumcision reconsidered. Transactional Analysis J 1999;29(3):215-21.
(36) Van der Kolk BA, Perry JC, Herman JL. Childhood origins of self-destructive behavior. Am J Psychiatry 1991; 148;1665-71.
(37) Jacobson B, Bygdeman M. Obstetric care and proneness of offspring to suicide. BMJ 1998; 317:1346-49.
(38) Van der Kolk BA. The compulsion to repeat the trauma: re-enactment, revictimization, and masochism. Psychiatr Clin North Am 1989;12(2):389-411.
(39) Goldman R. The psychological impact of circumcision. BJU Int 1999;83 Suppl. 1:93-103.
(40) Maguire P, Parks CM. Coping with loss: surgery and loss of body parts. BMJ 1998;316(7137):1086-8.
(41)Hill G. The case against circumcision. J Mens Health Gend 2007;4(3):318-23
(42)Goldman R. Circumcision policy: a psychosocial perspective. Paediatr Child Health 2004;9(9):630-3.
(43) See photographic series in: lander MM. The Human prepuce. In: Denniston GC, Milos MF (eds). Sexual Mutilations: a human Tragedy. New York: Plenum Press; 1997. pp.79-81
(44)Jefferson G. The peripenic muscle; some observations on the anatomy of phimosis. Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics 1916 Aug;23(2):177-81.
(45) Moldwin RM, Valderrama E. Immunohistochemical analysis of nerve distribution patterns within preputial tissues. J Urol 1989 Apr;141(4):499A. (abstract)
(46) Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: specialized musocsa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Br J Urol 1996 Feb;77(2): 291-5
(47) Dogiel AS. Die Nervenendigungen in der Haut der ausseren Genitalorgane des Menschen. Archiv fur Mikroskopische Anatomie 1893:41:585-612
(48)Bazett HC, McGlone B, Williams RG, Lufkin HM. Depth, distribution and probable identification in the prepuce of sensory end-organs concerned in sensations of temperature and touch; thermometric conductivity. Archives of Neurology and psychiatry 1932 Mar; 27(3):489-517
(49) Ohmori D. Uber die Entwicklung der Innervation der Genitalapparate als peripheren Aufnahmeapperat der Genitalen Reflexe. Zeitschrift fur Anatomie und Entwicklungsgeschichte 1924;70(1):347-410.
(50)Halata Z, Munger BL. The neuroanatomical basis for the protopathic sensibility of the human glans penis. Brain Res 1986 Apr23;371(2):205-30.
(51)Winkelmann RK. The Cutaneous Innervation of the human newborn prepuce. Invest Dermatol 1956 Jan;26(1):53-67
(52)Winkelmann RK. The erogenous zones: their nerve supply and significance. Mayo Clin Proc 1959;34(2):39-47.
(53)Morris L. Sorrells, James L. Snyder. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis . BJU 2006 Oct:22, pp. 864-869
(54) Weiss GN, Sanders M, Westbrook KC. The distribution and density of Langerhans cells in the human prepuce: site of diminished immune response? Isr J Med Sci 1993 Jan;29(1);42-3
(55) Flower PJ, Ladds PW, Thomas AD, Watson DL. An immunopathologic study on the bovine prepuce. Vet Pathol 1983 Mar;20(2):189-201.
(56)Ahmed A, Jones AW. Apocrine Cystadenoma: a report of two cases occurring on the prepuce. Br J Dermatol 1969 Dec; 81(12):899-901.
(57)Hyman AB, Brownstien MH. Tyson’s “glands”: ectopic sebaceous glands and papillomatosis penis. Arch Dermatol 1969 Jan;99(1):31-6
(58)Parkash S, Jeykumar S, Subramanyan K, Chaudhuri S. Human Subpreputial collection: its nature and formation. J Urol 1973 Aug 110(2):211-2
(59) Ahmed AA, Nordlind K, Schultzberd M, Liden S. Immunohisto chemical localization of IL-1 alpha-, IL-1 beta-, IL-6- and TNF-alpha-like immunoreactivities in human apocrine glands Arch
(60) Frohlich E Shamburg-Lever G, Klesses C. Immunelectron microscopic localization of cathepsin B in human apocrine glands. J Cutan Pathol 1993 Feb;20(1):54-60
(61) Cohn BA. In search of human skin pheromones. Arch Dermatol 1994 Aug; 130(8):1048-51
(62)Dermatol Res 1995;287(8):764-6Smith GL, Greenup R, Takafuji ET. Circumcision as a risk factor for urethritis in racial groups. AM J Public Health 1987 Apr;77(4):452-4
(63) Bassett I, Donovan B, Bodsworth NJ. Male circumcision and common sexually transmissible diseases in a developed nation setting. Genitourin Med 1994 Oct;70(5):317 -20.
(64) Bassett I, Donovan B, Bodsworth NJ, Field PR, Ho DW, jeansson S, Cunningham AL. Herpes Simplex virus type 2 infection of heterosexual men attending a sexual health sentre. Med J Aust 1994 Jun 6:160(11);697-700
(65) Van Howe R. Does Circumcision Influence Sexually Transmitted diseases?: a literature review. BJU Int 1999 Jan;83 Suppl 1:52-62.
(66) Laumann EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman EW. Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual Practice. JAMA 1997 Apr2;277(13):1052-7
(67) Dickson NP, Van Rood T, Herbison P, Paul C. Circumcision and risk of sexually transmitted infections in a birth cohort. J Pediatr 2008;152:383-7.
(68) Cook LS, Koutsky LA. Holmes KK. Clinical presentation of genital warts among circumcised and uncircumcised heterosexual men attending an urban STD clinic. Genitourin Med 1993 Aug;69(4):262-4
(69) Van Howe, Robert S. (May 2007). “Human papillomavirus and circumcision: A meta-analysis”. Journal of Infection 54 (5): 490–496.
(70) Dinh, T.H.; M. Sternberg, E.F. Dunne and L.E. Markowitz (April 2008). “Genital Warts Among 18- to 59-Year-Olds in the United States, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999–2004″. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 35 (4): 357–360.
(71) Van Howe, R.S. (January 1999). “Circucmsion and HIV infection: review of the litarature and meta-analysys”. International Journal of STD’s and AIDS 10: 8–16.
(72)Amir J. et al. Circumcision and Urinary Tract Infections in Infants. Am J Dis Child (1986), vol. 140, p. 1092.
(73)Prais D. Shoov-Furman R, Amir J. Is circumcision a risk factor for neonatal urinary tract infections? Arch Dis Child Published Online First: 6 October 2008.

Dr. Fred Kogen is incorrect when he states: “No matter where you sit on the Judaism scale culturally or religiously, you’ve had a bris―you’ve been circumcised." The fact is, there are a growing number of Jewish people who are choosing not to circumcise their sons. Please visit the "Beyond the Bris" project to learn more about the Jewish movement opposing circumcision. It's located at http://www.beyondthebris.com

Circumcision is an old Jeweish tribal way of saying: with this act you will forever be a Jew - that's why we do it when your only 8 days(!) old. The same goes fore Jews "choosing" the religion for their children, "chosing" to eat the way they do, living in a segregated way etc. All this is to tell themselves and the rest of the word they are special - "Hey - we are the choosen! God's own people! I just loath them.

I do not support the ballot initiative because I do not believe it will work. It will not reduce circumcision, but only relocate them from SF to Oakland and San Mateo. The level of government that should regulate circumcision is the state legislature. Finally, I believe that this ballot measure has traction in San Francisco mainly because it is the gay male Mecca. Gay men are more foreskin friendly than straight ones are.

Kogen is mistaken; many Jewish families outside the USA no longer circumcise. That fact is not well known because such families do not put it in the public domain. Most mohels and American doctors still do not use anesthesia, and that is utterly unconscionable.

"From the pragmatic point of view, the ceremony itself can be an extraordinarily powerful experience. Many non-Jews will say that to me even though it’s not part of their culture."
I agree, except that the emotion I feel is one of dismay and disgust, disgust at how a people as sexually sophisticated and humane as Jews could countenance something as anti-sexual as circumcision. Let us not kid ourselves: circumcision interferes with healthy normal sexuality. It desensitises the penis and diminishes the capacity to have and enjoy sex after age 40 or 50. It makes masturbation more difficult and less fun. It makes vaginal intercourse less satisfying to both genders. It grounds the obsession with fellatio, and the growing fascination with anal intercourse by straight couples. It increases the likelihod of PE and ED. It encourages young men to perform vaginal intercourse in a manner that is little better than date rape. More and more American women are testifying on the internet that they have been intimate with both kinds of men, and prefer intact.

American medical and sexual research has not been honest at all when it comes to investigating the adverse effects of infant circumcision on adult sexuality and on the pleasure of both sexes.

Every circumcision puts the victim at risk of death! Each year, over 100 baby boys die from circumcision in the USA alone. Parents have a right to needlessly risk a child's life?
What about the boys who have infections or other unintended complications that further destroys his penis?
What about the boys who lose their entire penis to circumcision?
Parents have a right to needlessly injure and further risk a child's well being for life?

I wish that somebody had protected me from this unnecessary amputation!
Circumcision is the amputation of a body part that the majority of the world's men (and women) have and are not choosing to chop off of themselves as adults. Making choices for children like clothing and teaching children one religion or another are not permanent. Children will grow up to start choosing their own clothes and make their own religious choices. Needlessly chopping off a child's healthy body part is permanent and DAMAGING no matter what.