Questioning Circumcision

Think. Read. Question. Learn. Share.

Court blocks father from circumcising 12-year-old son January 25, 2008

Filed under: Uncategorized — intactivist @ 6:39 pm

Court blocks father from circumcising 12-year-old son

Posted by The Oregonian January 25, 2008 08:14AM

Categories: Top Stories

The Oregon Supreme Court on Friday blocked a divorced former Southern Oregon man from circumcising his 12-year-old son against the wishes of the boy’s mother.

The court ruled that the trial judge failed to determine whether the boy wanted to have the procedure. The child’s mother, Lia Boldt, claims that circumcision is dangerous and that her son is afraid to say he doesn’t want the procedure. Go here for the court’s decision.

The court ordered the case back to the trial judge to determine the boy’s wishes.

James Boldt, who converted to Judaism several years ago, wants to circumcise his son. As the custodial parent, he argued that he has wide latitude to make decisions for the boy.

The lower courts sided with the father.

The case attracted national attention. An anti-circumcision group based in Seattle said the practice was dangerous. Jewish groups joined the fray out of the concern that the Oregon court would restrict circumcision.


“Addressing Questions About HIV and Circumcision” (PDF resource) January 5, 2008

Filed under: Uncategorized — intactivist @ 12:49 am



Circumcision is still not medically necessary. 

Circumcision is still not recommended as a routine procedure. 

Circumcision still carries many risks and harms. 

Everyone still needs to practice safe sex. 

The foreskin is still a normal, valuable body part. 

It’s still “his body, his choice.” 


Public Service Announcement December 18, 2007

Filed under: Uncategorized — intactivist @ 3:52 am


Public Service Announcement


The odds of a boy *ever* needing to be circumcised for medical reasons are just 1%.Conversely, circumcision guarantees a child:

  • 100% risk of losing “the most sensitive parts of the penis” LINK
  • 71% risk of penile adhesions LINK
  • 10% risk of meatal stenosis LINK
  • 1% risk of circumcision revision LINK

…and that’s to say nothing of immediate surgical risks including, but not limited to, anesthesia reaction, hemorrhage, infection, penile amputation and death or later complications like painful erections from too much skin being removed or the progressive keratinization (drying, thickening) of the glans.A foreskin is not a birth defect. 


MYTH: Circumcision & UTIs December 17, 2007

Filed under: Uncategorized — intactivist @ 8:46 pm


Penn & Teller: B.S.: Circumcision

Filed under: Uncategorized — intactivist @ 6:00 pm

  • Penn & Teller’s 3rd season includes an episode on circumcision.  It’s great!  They definitely address a lot of the myths.  I highly recommend it, especially for young, liberal parents and daddies-to-be.  
  • You can read about it and watch a preview, HERE.  
  • You can purchase it HERE.  Makes a great stocking-stuffer!  

A Matter of Semantics December 14, 2007

Filed under: Uncategorized — intactivist @ 5:28 pm

We need to eliminate the term “uncircumcised” from our vocabularies.  Babies, children, and men who possess their whole penises are intact, just as a woman who has natural breasts is not unmastectomized or someone without a nose job isn’t unrhinoplastied.  In fact, for a man to be “uncircumcised” circumcision would need to be reversible, which it’s sadly not.

Foreskins come standard, just like any other body part.  Being born without a foreskin is a rare conenital condition (birth defect) called aposthia.  Why would we want to take a perfectly healthy, normal child and surgically give him an abnormality?   

Traditions are manmade; they start somewhere, often based on myth and superstition and continue, often blindly followed until someone asks, “Why”?  Some traditions are harmless, but genital reduction surgery performed on children is painful, violating, and damaging.

Some things are inexplicable…as one bride found out when she finally thought to question why cutting off the ends of the roast before cooking the meat made for a better result: 

The new Jewish bride is making her first big dinner for her hand and tries her hand at her mother’s brisket recipe, cutting the ends off the roast the way her mother always did.  Hubby thinks the meat is delicious, but says, “Why do you cut off the ends—that’s the best part!”  She answers, “That’s the way my mother always made it.

The next week they go to the old bubbie’s house, and she prepares the famous brisket recipe, again cutting off the ends.  The young bride is sure she must be missing some vital information, so she asks her grandma why she cut off the ends.  Grandma says, “Dahlink, that’s the only way it will fit in the pan!”

Every person reading this has the opportunity to make a difference.  We can end this.  We can stop it.  We can start protecting our sons to the same degree we would protect our daughters if anyone suggested we cut off a part of her body at birth.  Change starts with us.  Our courage now will make it that much easier for our children to say NO to circumcision when we’re one day blessed with grandchildren.Start a new tradition: Bring the Whole Baby Home.



The Canadian Children’s Rights Council considers circumcision to be genital mutilation of children. December 13, 2007

Filed under: Uncategorized — intactivist @ 9:12 pm

Canadian Children’s Rights Council


The Canadian Children’s Rights Council considers circumcision to be genital mutilation of children. 

The position of the Canadian Children’s Rights Council 


The Canadian Children’s Rights Council position is that there is no medical benefit to the routine genital mutilation (circumcision) of any children (defined by U.N. as those under 18 years of age). Further, all Canadian children, both male and female, should be protected by the criminal laws of Canada with regards to this aggravated assault. Currently, the protection provided by the Criminal Code of Canada includes only genital mutilation (circumcision) of female children.

Our position is that all children should be protected from all forms of genital mutilation (circumcision of all types) including but not limited to, circumcision that doesn’t affect sexual function or that may be viewed by others as sexual enhancement surgery. Male circumcision does affect sexual function.

Canada and many other countries have responded positively to the U.N. initiatives to stop female genital mutilation  (FGM), so female genital mutilation in Canada is all but non existent and is by law considered to be aggravated assault, an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada.

It is unfortunate that the women’s groups which sought the protection of female children did not seek protection of of male children.  Their lack of concern and effort to protect male children has been viewed by some as a control and misandry issue of the western radical women’s groups.

There is much evidence in the various articles and documents on this website and elsewhere that suggests that the radical western feminists’ groups have unfairly blamed the female circumcision (genital mutilation) issue as being some form of male dominance or control over women in countries that previously practiced female genital mutilation.  The evidence is substantially to the contrary.

A tragedy is occurring in Canada right now. Canada’s health services have recognized that they shouldn’t be paying for circumcision.  It has no value as a health measure. Parents, out of medical ignorance, or who wrongly believe their religious obligations necessitate genital mutilation of their male children are asking that it be done.

If “medical necessity” is claimed, we suggest that such a claim is invariably fraudulent. Since in Finland, the risk of getting a circumcision at birth is zero, and the risk of needing one later is one in sixteen thousand, six hundred and sixtyseven (1/16,667), every claim for “medical necessity” should be fully investigated, and denied.