Circumcision controversies

Male circumcision has often been, and remains, the subject of controversy on a number of groundsreligious, ethical, sexual, and medical.[2][3][4]

In Classical and Hellenistic civilization, Ancient Greeks and Romans posed great value on the beauty of nature, physical integrity, aesthetics, harmonious bodies and nudity, including the foreskin[1][5] (see also Ancient Greek art), and were opposed to all forms of genital mutilation, including circumcisionan opposition inherited by the canon and secular legal systems of the Christian West and East that lasted at least through to the Middle Ages, according to Hodges.[5] Traditional branches of Judaism and Islam still advocate male circumcision as a religious obligation.

The ethics of circumcision are controversial.[2][3][4] During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the primary justification for circumcision was to prevent masturbation and intentionally reduce male sexual pleasure,[3][6] which was believed to cause a wide range of medical problems.[2][3][6][7][8] Modern proponents argue that circumcision reduces the risks of a range of infections and diseases as well as conferring sexual benefits.[2][3][9] By contrast, opponents, particularly of infant circumcision, often question its utility and effectiveness in preventing diseases,[2][3] and object to subjecting newborn boys, without their consent, to a procedure they consider to have debatable benefits, significant risks and a potentially negative impact on general health and later sexual enjoyment.

Religious and cultural conflicts

Ancient Near East

Genesis explains circumcision as a covenant with God given to Abraham,[Gen 17:10] but some scholars reject the historicity of these accounts[10] and look elsewhere for the origin of Jewish circumcision. One explanation, dating from Herodotus, is that the custom was acquired from the Egyptians, possibly during the period of enslavement.[11] A competing hypothesis, based on linguistic/ethnographic work begun in the 19th century,[12] suggests circumcision was a common tribal custom among many Semitic tribes, including Jews, Arabs and Phoenicians.

The Jewish and Islamic traditions both see circumcision as a way to distinguish a group from its neighbours.[13] The Bible records "uncircumcised" being used as a derogatory reference for opponents[1Sam 17:26] and Jewish victory in battle that culminated in mass post-mortem circumcision, to provide an account of the number of enemy casualties[1Sam 18:27]. Jews were also required to circumcise all household members, including slaves[Gen 17:12-14] – a practice that would later put them into collision with Roman and Christian law (see below).

Classical civilization

Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman culture found circumcision to be cruel and repulsive.[14] In 167 BCE Judea was part of the Seleucid Empire. Its ruler, Antiochus (175–165), smarting from a defeat in a war against Ptolemaic Egypt, banned traditional Jewish religious practice, and attempted to forcibly let the Jews accept Hellenistic culture. The Olympian Zeus was placed on the altar of the Temple, and throughout the country Jews were ordered, with the threat of execution, to sacrifice pigs to Greek gods (the normal practice in the Ancient Greek religion), desecrate the Shabbat, eat unkosher animals (especially pork), and relinquish their Jewish scriptures. Antiochus's decree also outlawed Jewish circumcision, and parents who violated his order were hanged along with their infants.1Mc 1:46-67[7] according to Tacitus, as quoted by Hodges, Antiochus "endeavoured to abolish Jewish superstition (superstitio Iudaica) and to introduce Greek civilization."[14] Perhaps the most prominent Jewish response during these times, was rebellion. Antiochus's decree motivated the Maccabees Revolt, which ultimately ended in the re-establishment of a short-lived independent Jewish kingdom under the Hasmoneans, until it turned into a client state of the Roman Republic under the reign of Herod the Great (37-4 BCE).

In the Roman Empire, circumcision was regarded as a barbaric and disgusting custom.[14] The consul Titus Flavius Clemens was condemned to death by the Roman Senate in 95 CE for, according to the Talmud, circumcising himself and converting to Judaism. The emperor Hadrian (117-138) forbade circumcision.[14] Overall, the rite of circumcision was especially execrable in Classical civilization,[14] also because it was the custom to spend an hour a day or so exercising nude in the gymnasium and in Roman baths, therefore Jewish men did not want to be seen in public deprived of their foreskins.[14]

As for the anti-circumcision law passed by Hadrian, it is considered by many to be, together with his decision to build a Roman temple upon the ruins of the Second Temple and dedicate it to Jupiter, one of the main causes of the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135). The revolt was brutally crushed. According to Cassius Dio, 580,000 Jews were killed, and 50 fortified towns and 985 villages razed.[15][16] Cassius Dio claimed that "Many Romans, moreover, perished in this war. Therefore, Hadrian, in writing to the Senate, did not employ the opening phrase commonly affected by the emperors: 'If you and your children are in health, it is well; I and the army are in health.'"[17] Because of the great loss of life in the war, even though Hadrian was victorious, he refused a triumph.

Hadrian's policy after the rebellion reflected an attempt to root out Judaism. All Jews were forbidden to enter Jerusalem upon pain of death and the city was renamed Aelia Capitolina and Roman Judea was renamed Syria Palaestina. Around 140, his successor Antoninus Pius (138-161) exempted Jews who circumcised their sons, though not their servants or slaves, from the decree against circumcision.[14]

Jewish nationalists' (Pharisees and Zealots) response to the decrees also took a more moderate form: circumcisions were secretly performed   even on dead Jews.[7] However, there were also many Jews, known as "Hellenizers", that viewed Hellenization and social integration of the Jewish people in the Greco-Roman world favourably, pursued a completely different approach, accepting the decrees and even making efforts to restore their foreskins to better assimilate into Hellenistic society.[14] The latter approach was common during the reign of Antiochus, and again under Roman rule. The foreskin was restored by one of two methods, that were later revived in the late 20th century. The surgical method, described in detail by the Greek physician Celsus (around 25 BCE - 50 CE), involved freeing the skin covering the penis by dissection, and then pulling it forward over the glans. Celsus also described a simpler surgical technique used on men whose prepuce is naturally insufficient to cover their glans.[18] The second approach was nonsurgical. A device called a Pondus Judaeus (Jewish burden), a special weight made of bronze, copper, or leather, was affixed to the penis, pulling its skin downward. Overtime, a new foreskin was generated, or a short prepuce was lengthened, by means of tissue expansion. Martial mentioned the instrument in Epigrammaton Libri 7:35.[19]

The Apostle Paul referred to these practices, saying: "Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised."[1Cor 7:18] But he also explicitly denounced the forcing of circumcision upon non-Jews, rejecting and condemning those who stipulated the ritual to Gentile Christians, labelling such advocates as "false brothers"[Gal 2:4] (see below). According to the same researchers, in the mid-2nd century Jewish leaders introduced a radical method of circumcision, the periah, that left the glans totally uncovered, making it almost impossible to restore the foreskin.[19]

Under the first Christian emperor, Constantine, the two rescripts of Antoninus on circumcision were re-enacted and again in the 6th century under Justinian. These restrictions on circumcision made their way into both secular and canon law and "at least through the Middle Ages, preserved and enhanced laws banning Hebrews from circumcising non-Hebrews and banning Christians or slaves of any religious affiliation from undergoing circumcision for any reason."[14]

Circumcision controversy in early Christianity

The first Christian Church Council in Jerusalem, held in approximately 50 CE, decreed that circumcision was not a requirement for Gentile converts (Acts 15). This became known as the "Apostolic Decree"[20] and is one of the first acts differentiating Early Christianity from Rabbinic Judaism.[21] Around 140 CE, the Tannaim made circumcision requirements stricter, in order to make the procedure irreversible.[22]

According to the Acts of the Apostles, the leaders of the Christian Church at the Council of Jerusalem forbade circumcision as a requirement for Gentile converts,[23] possibly the first act of differentiation of Early Christianity from its Jewish roots[24] (see also list of events in early Christianity).

The Apostle Paul, who called himself Apostle to the Gentiles, attacked the practice, but not consistently; for example in one case he personally circumcised Timothy "because of the Jews" that were in town (Timothy had a Jewish Christian mother but a Greek father Acts 16:1–3).[25] He also appeared to praise its value in Rom 3:1–2, hence the topic of Paul of Tarsus and Judaism is still debated. Paul argued that circumcision no longer meant the physical, but a spiritual practice (Rom 2:25–29). And in that sense, he wrote 1 Cor 7:18: "Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised"—probably a reference to the practice of epispasm.[26] Paul was already circumcised ("on the eighth day", Phil 3:4–5) when he was "called". He added: "Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised", and went on to argue that circumcision did not matter: "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts" (1 Cor 7:19).

Later he more explicitly denounced the practice, rejecting and condemning those who promoted circumcision to Gentile Christians.[23] He accused Galatian Christians who advocated circumcision of turning from the Spirit to the flesh.[23] And in Gal 3:3 says "Are you so foolish, that, whereas you began in the Spirit, you would now be made perfect by the flesh?" He accused circumcision advocates of wanting to make a good showing in the flesh Gal 6:12 and of glorying or boasting of the flesh Gal 6:13. Paul in his letters fiercely criticized the Judaizers that demanded circumcision for Gentile converts, and opposed them;[23] he stressed instead that faith in Christ constituted a "New Covenant" with God,[23] a covenant which essentially provides a "free gift" of salvation from the harsh edicts of the Mosaic Law for Gentiles that didn't require circumcision.[23]


In the early 7th century, Muhammad welded together many Semitic tribes of the Arabian peninsula into the kernel of a rapidly expanding Muslim movement. The one thing that can be said with some certainty is that male and female circumcision was already well established among these tribes, and probably had been for more than a thousand years, most likely as a fertility rite. Herodotus had noticed the practice among various Semite nations in the 5th century BCE, and Josephus had specifically mentioned circumcision as a tradition among Arabs in the 1st century CE.[12] There are some narrations attributed to Muhammad in which he approves of female circumcision; however, many scholars believe that these narrations are weak and lack authenticity.[27]

The practice of circumcision is sometimes characterized as a part of fitrah as mentioned in the hadith of Sahih al-Bukhari (Quotations of Muhammad)[28][29]


During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries many Jewish reformers, doctors, and physicians in Central and Eastern Europe proposed to replace circumcision with a symbolic ceremony, while others sought to ban or abolish circumcision entirely,[30] as it was perceived as a dangerous, barbaric and pagan ritual of genital mutilation[30] that could transmit infectious diseases to newborns.[30] The first formal objection to circumcision within Judaism occurred in 1843 in Frankfurt.[30][22] The Society for the Friends of Reform, a group that criticized traditional Jewish practices, said that brit milah was not a mitzvah but an outworn legacy from Israel's earlier phases, an obsolete throwback to primitive religion.[22] With the expanding role of medicine came further opposition; certain aspects of Jewish circumcision such as periah and metzitzah (drawing the blood from the circumcision wound through sucking or a cloth) were deemed unhygienic and dangerous for the newborns.[30][22] Later evidence that syphilis and tuberculosis  two of the most feared infectious diseases in the 19th century  were spread by mohels,[30] caused various rabbis to advocate metzitzah to be done using a sponge or a tube.[22] Among the secular, non-observant Jews that chose to not circumcise their sons and keep them intact there was also Theodor Herzl.[31]

Ephron reports that non-Jews and also some Jewish reformers in early 19th-century Germany had criticized ritual circumcision as "barbaric" and that Jewish doctors responded to these criticisms with defences of the ritual or proposals for modification or reform. By the late 19th century some German Jewish doctors defended circumcision by claiming it had health advantages.[32] Today the Rabbinical Council of America, the largest group of Modern Orthodox rabbis, endorses using a glass tube as a substitute of metzitzah.[33]

However, a growing number of contemporary Jews and Intactivist Jewish groups in the United States, United Kingdom and Israel, both secular and religious, started to question overall long-term effects, psychological and psychophysical consequences of trauma caused by circumcision on Jewish children,[6][34][35] and choose not to circumcise their sons.[6][35][36][37][38] They are assisted by a small number of Reform, Liberal, and Reconstructionist rabbis, and have developed a welcoming ceremony that they call the Brit shalom ("Covenant [of] Peace") for such children,[6][35] also accepted by Humanistic Judaism.[37][39][40]

Middle Ages to the 19th century

Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica questioned why, if under Jewish doctrine circumcision removed original sin, (this is true) Jesus was circumcised  as Jesus had no original sin. Steve Jones suggests there is a theological tradition that Jesus regained his foreskin at the Ascension. "Had he failed to do so, the Saved would themselves have to be operated upon in Paradise so as not to be more perfect than their Saviour."[41]

The Jews were expelled from England by Edward I in 1290, ostensibly over social tensions concerning usury. But the public imagination had been gripped by blood libel since at least the 12th century: "So pervasive was the belief that Jews circumcised their victims ... that Menasseh ben Israil, the Dutch Rabbi who sought from Cromwell the readmission of the Jews in 1656, had to dwell at considerable length in his Vindiciae Judaeorum at refuting the claim."[42]

In 15th-century Spain, most Jews and Muslims were expelled and the Spanish Inquisition monitored and prosecuted converts to Christianity to ensure they were not secretly practising Judaism, consorting with Jews or engaging in Jewish practices such as circumcision.[43]

In 1521, Cortés defeated the Aztec empire in Mesoamerica, which was followed by a large influx of Spanish clergy, whose writings provide most of information about pre-conquest Aztec life and customs largely assembled from interviews with those who survived the invasion and subsequent epidemics, and their descendents. Diego Durán, a Dominican friar, was convinced that the Aztecs were one of the lost tribes of Israel, with a crucial piece of supporting evidence being that they had practised circumcision.[44]

So influential was this notion that 300 years later Bancroft in his monumental Native Races[45] began his discussion of circumcision by writing: "Whether the custom of circumcision, which has been the great prop of argument in favor of the Jewish origin of the Aztecs, really obtained among these people, has been doubted by numerous authors," concluding that it probably existed in a "certain form among some tribes" (p278). The key being "a certain form", since Bancroft makes clear in a footnote that the majority of his sources, including Clavigero, Ternaux-Compans, Carbajal Espinosa, Oviedo y Herrera, and especially Acosta, believed Durán and others "confounded the custom of drawing blood from the secret organs with circumcision", and "the incision on the prepuce and ear to have been mistaken for circumcision", adding that this blood-letting rite[46] was "chiefly performed upon sons of great men" (p279). The case was not helped by the fact no reports of seeing a circumcised adult Aztec existed in the literature. Remondino says it is "a matter of controversy" whether the foreskin had actually been removed (p46).[7]

In regard to the Mayans, Bancroft says that in 1858 Brasseur de Bourbourg reported finding "traces" [47] of circumcision in the sources, despite Cogolludo having reported that "circumcision was unknown to the Indians of Yucatan" (pp279, 679).[45] But in 1864 Brasseur published his French translation of Diego de Landa's recently recovered 1556 ethnographic manuscript, which decisively rejected the notion of Mayan circumcision, and in a footnote he acknowledged there had probably been a "mistake", an admission that never found its way into the English-language literature[48] although modern ethnography has long since understood the nature of these rituals.[49] However, the Aztecs and Mayans are included by many authors from other disciplines among the list of pre-modern people who practised circumcision. Examples of such sources include UNAIDS,[50] Kaplan,[51] and Weiss.[52]

Countries that do not circumcise have often held antipathy for those that do. Being circumcised was often seen as a sign of disgrace.[7] According to Darby, it was also seen as a serious loss of erogenous tissue: "During the Renaissance and 18th century the centrality of the foreskin to male sexual function and the pleasure of both partners was recognised by anatomists Berengario da Carpi, Gabriello Fallopio and William Harvey, in popular sex manuals like Aristotle's master-piece, and by physicians like John Hunter, who also appreciated the importance of the foreskin in providing the slack tissue needed to accommodate an erection."[53]

In 1650, English physician John Bulwer in his study of body modification, Anthropometamorphosis: Man Transform'd, or the Artificial Changeling, wrote of the loss in sexual pleasure resulting from circumcision: "the part which hangeth over the end of the foreskin, is moved up and down in coition, that in this attrition it might gather more heat, and increase the pleasure of the other sexe; a contentation of which they [the circumcised] are defrauded by this injurious invention. For, the shortnesse of the prepuce is reckoned among the organical defects of the yard, … yet circumcision detracts somewhat from the delight of women, by lessening their titillation." The English historian Edward Gibbon, author of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, referred to the practice as "a painful and often dangerous rite", and a "singular mutilation" practiced only by Jews and Turks.

Modern debates


The ethical view of circumcision varies by country. In the United States, with a high circumcision rate, the American Medical Association stated in 2011 that they "'will oppose any attempts to intrude into legitimate medical practice and the informed choices of patients".[54] Such statements have drawn criticism from international doctors; a group of European doctors accused the 2012 American Academy of Pediatrics technical report of cultural bias.[55]

Countries with a low circumcision rate, such as Denmark and Sweden have been discussing the similarities between male circumcision and female circumcision and the violation of the child's bodily integrity.[56] In Denmark and Sweden, a ban on non-medical circumcision of boys in addition to girls was recommended in 2014 and 2016.[57][58]

Sweden was the first country to ban female circumcision, or FGM, in 1982.[59]

In 2017, the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics published two separate articles challenging the morality of performing non-therapeutic infant circumcision.[60][61]


Circumcision spread in several English-speaking nations from the late 19th century, with the introduction of anesthesia and antisepsis rapidly expanding surgical practice.[11] Doctors such as Sir Jonathan Hutchinson in England wrote articles in favour of the procedure.[62] Peter Charles Remondino, a San Diego physician, wrote a History of Circumcision from the Earliest Times to the Present: Moral and Physical Reasons for Its Performance (1891), to promote circumcision.[63] Lewis Sayre, a prominent orthopedic surgeon at the time, was another early American advocate.[63] However, the theories on which many early claims were made, such as the reflex theory of disease and the alleged harmful effects of masturbation, have long since been abandoned by the medical profession.[63]

Dr. John Harvey Kellogg recommended circumcision of boys caught masturbating, writing: "A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering anaesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment." But he was opposed to routine circumcision of infants: "It is doubtful, however, whether as much harm as good does not result from circumcision, since it has been shown by extensive observation among the Jews that very great contraction of the meatus, or external orifice of the urethra, is exceedingly common among them, being undoubtedly the result of the prolonged irritation and subsequent cicatricial contraction resulting from circumcision in infancy." [64]

An early British opponent of circumcision was Herbert Snow, who wrote a short book called The barbarity of circumcision as a remedy for congenital abnormality in 1890.[65] But as late as 1936, L. E. Holt, an author of pediatric textbooks, advocated male and female circumcision as a treatment for masturbation.[66]

The first serious questioning of the practice did not occur until late 1949 when Gairdner published The Fate of the Foreskin[67] in the British Medical Journal; according to Wallerstein this began to affect the practice of circumcision in Britain.[3]

According to Darby and Cox, the persistence of circumcision in the US has led to more vigorous protest movements.[68] A 1980 protest march at the California State Capitol was reported in an Associated Press article.[69] The National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC), was formed by Marilyn Milos, R.N., in 1985.[70] The organization's stated objective is to secure the birthright of male, female, and intersex children and babies to keep their sex organs intact. Protest rallies have been held in the US and other areas. NOCIRC have consistently criticised the American medical community's circumcision guidelines.[70] According to Milos and Donna Macris, "The need to defend the baby's right to a peaceful beginning was brought to light by Dr. Frederick Leboyer in his landmark work, Birth Without Violence".[70]

This period also saw the formation of anti-circumcision organizations in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and South Africa. Activists began creating websites in the mid-1990s, and this process has continued. One such organization distributed questionnaires to circumcised men. The complaints included prominent scarring (33%), insufficient penile skin for comfortable erection (27%), erectile curvature from uneven skin loss (16%), and pain and bleeding upon erection/manipulation (17%). Psychological complaints included feelings of mutilation (60%), low self-esteem/inferiority to "intact" men (50%), genital dysmorphia (55%), rage (52%), resentment/depression (59%), violation (46%), or parental betrayal (30%). Many respondents reported that their physical/emotional suffering impeded emotional intimacy with their partner(s), resulting in sexual dysfunction.[71] Prominent men known to be unhappy about being circumcised include Sigmund Freud,[72] A E Housman, W.H. Auden, Geoffrey Keynes and his brother John Maynard Keynes, the famous economist.[68] In 1996 the British Medical Journal published a letter by 20 men saying that "we have been harmed by circumcision in childhood"; they argued that "it cannot be ethical for a doctor to amputate normal tissue from a normal child".[68] Dr. Benjamin Spock (1903 1998), whose Baby and Child Care is the biggest selling American single-author book in history, originally supported circumcision but changed his mind near the end of his life.[73]

Medical controversies

In the United States, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which collaborated to produce the 2012 statements issued by the AAP, position paper as of 2012 stated ""In cases such as the decision to perform a circumcision in the newborn period (where there is reasonable disagreement about the balance between medical benefits and harms, where there are nonmedical benefits and harms that can result from a decision on whether to perform the procedure, and where the procedure is not essential to the child’s immediate well-being), the parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. In the pluralistic society of the United States, where parents are afforded wide authority for determining what constitutes appropriate child-rearing and child welfare, it is legitimate for the parents to take into account their own cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to medical factors, when making this choice."[74][75]

Hill (2002) has criticised the Academy's older circumcision information brochure for parents, arguing that the brochure is inadequate to persuade parents to avoid circumcision.[76]

HIV in southern and eastern Africa

Starting in 2008 and following a framework established in 2007, the WHO and UNAIDS recommended voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) as a means of reducing the rate of HIV infection in eastern and southern Africa, and between 2008 and 2016 11 million adolescent boys and men in the region were circumcised, and the 2016 goal was to reach 90% of males aged 10–29-years by 2021.[77][78]

Two reports published in 2007, and another in 2011 raised doubts about the evidence the clinical trial evidence used as a basis for the policy.[79][80][81] Boyle & Hill (2011) reviewed the three African randomized clinical trials used by the World Health Organization, and found numerous scientific issues that cast doubts on the conclusions. Most importantly, they found that while the claimed and publicized sixty percent reduction in HIV transmission was a relative reduction, the actual absolute reduction was only about 1.3 percent.[81] In 2009 the UK National Health Service posted a commentary on a 2009 paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine about clinical trial outcomes of VMCC in African men and boys on sexually-transmitted herpes simplex virus type 2 and human papillomavirus (HPV).[82][83] The NHS noted that the study was applicable to African, not UK, populations, that commentators in the US reacted more positively than those in the UK, and that UK commentators questioned some of the analysis.[82] The NHS also noted that condom use is the best way to prevent sexually-transmitted disease.[82]

Reviews published in 2016 found the evidence from those trials to be solid, and found that additional high quality clinical trials had shown that VMMC also could reduce HPV transmission in that region.[84][85]

Genital integrity

The term "genital integrity" refers to the condition of having complete and unaltered genital organs. Genital integrity is the norm in Latin America (all Central and South American countries), the United Kingdom and all other European states (except for three countries in the Balkans with large Muslim populations: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo), and in most Asian countries.[86] Doctors Opposing Circumcision asserts that genital integrity produces the highest state of health and well-being.[87]

Hammond (1999) asserts that every person has a right to a whole and intact body and that, where minors are concerned, "the unnecessary removal of a functioning body organ in the name of tradition, custom or any other non-disease related cause should never be acceptable to the health profession." He says that such interventions are violations of individual bodily rights and "a breach of fundamental medical ethics principles".[71] Many opponents of circumcision see infant circumcision as unnecessary, harmful and unethical;[87] some want the procedures prohibited.[88] Boyle et al (2000) suggest that "As we enter the 21st century, appropriate legal action must be taken to safeguard the physical genital integrity of male children."[89]

Others also see the genital cutting of children as a human rights and children's rights issue,[90] opposing the genital modification and mutilation of children, including circumcision,[91] female genital mutilation and intersex genital surgeries; several anti-circumcision organizations oppose sex assignment surgeries on infants with ambiguous genitalia.[88][92][93][94]

Current laws in many countries, and United States Federal Law as well as laws in several U.S. states, prohibit the genital modification and mutilation of female minors, with some exceptions based on medical need. Opponents of male circumcision assert that laws against genital modification and mutilation of minors should apply equally to males and females.

Many anti-circumcision groups have joined the International Coalition for Genital Integrity[95] and endorsed its declaration,[96] which was adopted by the First International Symposium on Circumcision, on March 3, 1989, at Anaheim, California (there have been nine such further symposia held since, with the proceedings of several subsequently published in book form).[97] Intact America, founded in 2008, and other organizations such as Genital Autonomy America, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Civil Liberties Union, and Centers for Disease Control strive to raise public awareness on the biological and sexual functions of the foreskin,[91] alter policy and change attitudes toward male infant circumcision in the United States.[91]

However, linking male circumcision to female genital mutilation (FGM) is itself highly controversial. Organizations actually involved in combating FGM have been at considerable pains to distinguish the two, as this UNICEF document explains: "When the practice first came to be known beyond the societies in which it was traditionally carried out, it was generally referred to as 'female circumcision'. This term, however, draws a direct parallel with male circumcision and, as a result, creates confusion between these two distinct practices."[98] This stance has been largely echoed by Western medical and political authorities. A Royal Dutch Medical Association viewpoint says that the form of female genital mutilation that resembles non-therapeutic circumcision the most is rejected unanimously throughout literature. The viewpoint also says "FGM takes many forms. There is the most severe form, infibulation, in which the inner and outer labia are stitched together and the clitoris is removed. However, there are also much milder forms of FGM, in which only the foreskin of the clitoris is removed."[99]

In the United States, the organization has been sending a proposed bill to the US Congress and 15 state legislatures every year since 2004 in order to extend the prohibition on genital modification and mutilation of minors to include male and intersex children.[88] Although Rep. Virgil Goode expressed public support for the bill in 2005, he refused to sponsor it.[100][101]

According to the Nordic Association of Clinical Sexology (2013), "the decision to alter the appearance, sensitivity, and functionality of the penis should be left to its owner, thus upholding his fundamental rights to protection and bodily integrity. Every person's right to bodily integrity goes hand in hand with his or her sexual autonomy."[102]

Other contemporary controversies

Controversy in India

While circumcision debates are often dominated by the concerns of Anglophone countries, very different controversies over the procedure regularly erupt in other cultural contexts. In South Asia, Pakistan has long used circumcision status as a definitive marker of Indian covert involvement in its internal affairs. But this assumption was thrown into confusion when it was discovered that large segments of its own Muslim male population, specifically from western tribal areas, were themselves uncircumcised.[103]

Controversy in Israel

Opposition to circumcision [104] exists among Jews in Israel. Protests for children's rights have occurred there.[105] Even though there is often pressure from family on parents to circumcise their sons, "more and more families" are preferring to abstain from circumcision.[106][107]

Controversy in South Africa

In the Xhosa areas of South Africa, the large death toll from traditional circumcision provide a constant source of friction between traditional leaders, who oppose medicalised procedures, and health authorities. In 2009 in Eastern Cape Province alone, 80 boys died and hundreds were hospitalised after attending initiation schools.[108] The controversy looks set to spread to the Zulu, whose present-day king Goodwill Zwelithini has called for the reintroduction of customary circumcision after it was banned by Zulu king Shaka in the 19th century.[109] Similar issues, though on a smaller scale, have arisen with traditional circumcision of Aborigines in remote areas of central Australia.[110]

Controversy in Germany

On June 26, 2012, a court in Cologne, Germany ruled that circumcision was "inflicting bodily harm on boys too young to consent", deciding that the practice contravenes the "interests of the child to decide later in life on his religious beliefs".[111] The decision based on the article "Criminal Relevance of Circumcising Boys. A Contribution to the Limitation of Consent in Cases of Care for the Person of the Child"[112] published by Holm Putzke, a German law professor at the University of Passau.[113][114] The decision of the court in the city of Cologne, that a child's right to physical integrity trumps religious and parental rights, applied only within the jurisdiction of that court. The ruling was condemned by Jewish and Muslim groups in Europe.[115] A broad majority of German lawmakers passed a resolution asking Angela Merkel's government to clarify the ruling so as to allow Jews and Muslims to continue to practice their religion. On 12 December 2012, following a series of hearings and consultations, the Bundestag adopted a law explicitly permitting non-therapeutic circumcision to be performed under certain conditions by a vote of 434-100, with 46 abstentions.[116]

Anti-circumcision movement (Intactivism)

The anti-circumcision movement, whose members sometimes call themselves Intactivists (a portmanteau of "intact" and "activist"), strives to prohibit involuntary and forced circumcision internationally. Various organisations have been set up specifically for the purpose, other organisations have stated their support for the movement. Intactivists consider themselves to be an LGBT social movement, and have participated in LGBT pride parades ever since 2006.[117]

See also


  1. 1 2
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Still, Hereford (January 1972). "Circumcision — An Outdated and Unnecessary Procedure?". Canadian Family Physician. College of Family Physicians of Canada. 18 (1): 51–52. PMC 2370328. PMID 20468719.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wallerstein, Edward (February 1985). "Circumcision: The Uniquely American Medical Enigma". Urologic Clinics of North America. 12 (1): 123–132. PMID 3883617. Retrieved 8 August 2018.
  4. 1 2 Lukong, C. S. (December 2011). "Circumcision: Controversies and Prospects". Journal of Surgical Techniques and Case Report. National Center for Biotechnology Information. 3 (2): 65–66. doi:10.4103/2006-8808.92795. PMC 3296435.
  5. 1 2 Hodges, Frederick, M. (2001). "The Ideal Prepuce in Ancient Greece and Rome: Male Genital Aesthetics and Their Relation to Lipodermos, Circumcision, Foreskin Restoration, and the Kynodesme" (PDF). The Bulletin of the History of Medicine. Johns Hopkins University Press. 75 (Fall 2001): 375–405. doi:10.1353/bhm.2001.0119. PMID 11568485. Retrieved 2018-02-06.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 Kimmel, Michael S. (May–June 2001). "The Kindest Un-Cut: Feminism, Judaism, and My Son's Foreskin". Tikkun. Duke University Press. 16 (3): 43–48. Retrieved 2018-08-01.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 Remondino, P.C (1891). History Of Circumcision. pp. 65–69.
  8. Darby, Robert (Spring 2003). "The Masturbation Taboo and the Rise of Routine Male Circumcision: A Review of the Historiography". Journal of Social History. 36 (3): 737–757. doi:10.1353/jsh.2003.0047.
  9. Brian Morris. "Circumcision: An Evidence-Based Appraisal".
  10. Thompson, Thomas (2002). The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham. Valley Forge, Pa: Trinity Press International. ISBN 1-56338-389-6. It must be concluded that any such historicity ... about the patriarchs of Genesis is hardly possible and totally improbable. (p. 328)
  11. 1 2 Dunsmuir WD, Gordon EM (1999). "The history of circumcision". BJU Int. 83 (Suppl. 1:1–12): 1–12. doi:10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1001.x. PMID 10349408.
  12. 1 2 George Barton (1902). A sketch of Semitic origins, social and religious. Macmillan. pp. 98–100. ISBN 1-4286-1575-X. OCLC 1850150.
  13. See the story of Dina & Shechem in Genesis. Also the mass circumcision during the exodus from Egypt.
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Jewish Encyclopedia: Circumcision: In Apocryphal and Rabbinical Literature: "Contact with Grecian life, especially at the games of the arena [which involved nudity], made this distinction obnoxious to the Hellenists, or antinationalists; and the consequence was their attempt to appear like the Greeks by epispasm ("making themselves foreskins"; I Macc. i. 15; Josephus, "Ant." xii. 5, § 1; Assumptio Mosis, viii.; I Cor. vii. 18; Tosef., Shab. xv. 9; Yeb. 72a, b; Yer. Peah i. 16b; Yeb. viii. 9a). All the more did the law-observing Jews defy the edict of Antiochus Epiphanes prohibiting circumcision (I Macc. i. 48, 60; ii. 46); and the Jewish women showed their loyalty to the Law, even at the risk of their lives, by themselves circumcising their sons."; Hodges, Frederick, M. (2001). "The Ideal Prepuce in Ancient Greece and Rome: Male Genital Aesthetics and Their Relation to Lipodermos, Circumcision, Foreskin Restoration, and the Kynodesme" (PDF). The Bulletin of the History of Medicine. Johns Hopkins University Press. 75 (Fall 2001): 375–405. doi:10.1353/bhm.2001.0119. PMID 11568485. Retrieved 2018-02-06.
  15. The 'Five Good Emperors' (
  16. Mosaic or mosaic?—The Genesis of the Israeli Language by Zuckermann, Gilad
  17. Cassius Dio, Roman History
  18. Rubin JP. Celsus's Decircumcision Operation. Urology. July 1980;16(1):121–4. doi:10.1016/0090-4295(80)90354-4. PMID 6994325.
  19. 1 2 Schultheiss D, Truss MC, Stief CG, Jonas U. Uncircumcision: A Historical Review of Preputial Restoration. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;101(7):1990–8. doi:10.1097/00006534-199806000-00037. PMID 9623850.
  20. Catholic Encyclopedia: Judaizers: Council of Jerusalem (A.D. 50 OR 51): "But to still the clamours of the converts from Pharisaism who demanded that the Gentile converts "must be circumcised and be commanded to observe the Law of Moses", the matter was discussed in a public meeting. ... By the decree of the Apostles the cause of Christian liberty was won against the narrow Judaizers, and the way smoothed for the conversion of the nations. The victory was emphasized by St. Paul's refusal to allow Titus to be circumcised even as a pure concession to the extremists (Galatians 2:2-5)."
  21. Jewish Encyclopedia: Baptism: "According to rabbinical teachings, which dominated even during the existence of the Temple (Pes. viii. 8), Baptism, next to circumcision and sacrifice, was an absolutely necessary condition to be fulfilled by a proselyte to Judaism (Yeb. 46b, 47b; Ker. 9a; 'Ab. Zarah 57a; Shab. 135a; Yer. Kid. iii. 14, 64d). Circumcision, however, was much more important, and, like baptism, was called a "seal" (Schlatter, "Die Kirche Jerusalems," 1898, p. 70). But as circumcision was discarded by Christianity, and the sacrifices had ceased, Baptism remained the sole condition for initiation into religious life. The next ceremony, adopted shortly after the others, was the imposition of hands, which, it is known, was the usage of the Jews at the ordination of a rabbi. Anointing with oil, which at first also accompanied the act of Baptism, and was analogous to the anointment of priests among the Jews, was not a necessary condition."
  22. 1 2 3 4 5 Gollaher, David (February 2001). "1, The Jewish Tradition". Circumcision: A History Of The World's Most Controversial Surgery. New York City: Basic Books. pp. 1–30. ISBN 978-0-465-02653-1.
  23. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Acts 15:1-2, Acts 15:6-10, Gal 5:2-3, Gal 5:6-12, Gal 6:12-15, Phil 3:2-3, 1 Cor 7:17-21, Rom 2:17-29, Rom 3:9-28, Rom 5:1-11.
  24. Jewish Encyclopedia: Baptism: "According to rabbinical teachings, which dominated even during the existence of the Temple (Pes. viii. 8), Baptism, next to circumcision and sacrifice, was an absolutely necessary condition to be fulfilled by a proselyte to Judaism (Yeb. 46b, 47b; Ker. 9a; 'Ab. Zarah 57a; Shab. 135a; Yer. Kid. iii. 14, 64d). Circumcision, however, was much more important, and, like baptism, was called a 'seal' (Schlatter, "Die Kirche Jerusalems," 1898, p. 70). But as circumcision was discarded by Christianity, and the sacrifices had ceased, Baptism remained the sole condition for initiation into religious life. The next ceremony, adopted shortly after the others, was the imposition of hands, which, it is known, was the usage of the Jews at the ordination of a rabbi. Anointing with oil, which at first also accompanied the act of Baptism, and was analogous to the anointment of priests among the Jews, was not a necessary condition."
  25. McGarvey on Acts 16: "Yet we see him in the case before us, circumcising Timothy with his own hand, and this 'on account of certain Jews who were in those quarters.'"
  26. "making themselves foreskins"; I Macc. i. 15; Josephus, "Ant." xii. 5, § 1; Assumptio Mosis, viii.; I Cor. vii. 18;, Tosef.; Talmud tractes Shabbat xv. 9; Yevamot 72a, b; Yerushalmi Peah i. 16b; Yevamot viii. 9a; ; Catholic Encyclopedia: Circumcision: "To this epispastic operation performed on the athletes to conceal the marks of circumcision St. Paul alludes, me epispastho (1 Cor 7:18)."
  27. Female Circumcision and Islam; Sheikh (Dr.) `Abd al-Rahmân b. Hasan al-Nafisah, editor of the Contemporary Jurisprudence Research Journal, Riyadh
  28. Saheeh Al Bukhari Hadeeth No. 5509}
  29. Saheeh Al Bukhari Hadeeth No. 5511}
  30. 1 2 3 4 5 6
  31. Goldman, Ronald (1997). "Circumcision: A Source of Jewish Pain". Jewish Circumcision Resource Center. Jewish Spectator. Retrieved 2018-07-28.
  32. John M. Ephron (2001). Medicine and the German Jews. Yale University Press. pp. 222–233.
  33. Metzitza Be'Peh - Halachic Clarification Regarding Metzitza Be'Peh, RCA Clarifies Halachic Background to Statement of March 1, 2005
  34. Goodman, Jason (1999). "Jewish circumcision: an alternative perspective". The Circumcision Reference Library. BJU International. Retrieved 2018-07-28.
  35. 1 2 3 Oryszczuk, Stephen (28 February 2018). "The Jewish parents cutting out the bris". The Times of Israel. Jerusalem. Retrieved 4 August 2018.
  36. Chernikoff, Helen (October 3, 2007). "Jewish "intactivists" in U.S. stop circumcising". Reuters. Retrieved 2007-11-03.
  37. 1 2 Greenberg, Zoe (25 July 2017), "When Jewish Parents Decide Not to Circumcise", New York Times, retrieved 13 September 2017
  38. Kasher, Rani (23 August 2017). "It's 2017. Time to Talk About Circumcision". Haaretz. Tel Aviv. Retrieved 4 September 2017.
  39. Reiss, MD, Dr. Mark (2006). "Celebrants of Brit Shalom". Brit Shalom. Archived from the original on 2014-12-13. Retrieved 2007-10-03.
  40. Goldman, PhD, Ron (2006). "Providers of Brit Shalom". Jews Against Circumcision. Archived from the original on 2007-09-29. Retrieved 2007-10-03.
  41. Steve Jones (2005). Y: the descent of men, Chapter 5. Mariner Books. ISBN 0-618-13930-3.
  42. James Shapiro (1998). Shakespeare and the Jews. ISBN 978-0-312-21689-4.
  43. Henry Kamen (1997). The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-297-81719-1.
  44. The History of the Indies of New Spain, Chapter 1 concerns the Jewish origins of the Aztecs, a very common idea at the time. Gods and Rite, Chapter 3 deals with the associated idea of circumcision
  45. 1 2 Bancroft, Hubert Howe (1882). The Native Races, Volume 2, Civilized Nations.
  46. It is now thought this ubiquitous Mesoamerican ritual dates back to the Olmecs. See Olmec Bloodletting: An Iconographic Study
  47. In fact the term used is "restes déformés des rites antiques" or "deformed remnants of ancient rites" p35 Histoire des nations civilisées du Mexique et de l'Amérique Centrale (1857-9)
  48. Landa, Diego de (1864). Relation des choses de Yucatán de Diego de Landa. p. 162. ISBN 1-145-37930-3.
  49. Joralemon, D. (1974). "Ritual Blood-Sacrifice among the Ancient Maya: Part I". In Merle Green Robertson. Primera Mesa Redonda de Palenque (PDF). pp. 59–76.
  50. "Circumcision: Global Trends and Determinants of Prevalence, Safety and Acceptability" (PDF).
  51. Kaplan GW (March 1977). "Circumcision--an overview". Curr Probl Pediatr. 7 (5): 1–33. PMID 321186.
  52. Weiss, Charles (1966). "Motives for male circumcision among preliterate and literate peoples". The Journal of Sex Research. 2 (2): 69–88. doi:10.1080/00224496609550503.
  53. Robert Darby (2003). "Medical history and medical practice: persistent myths about the foreskin". Medical Journal of Australia. 178 (4): 178–9. PMID 12580747.
  60. Svoboda JS. Nontherapeutic circumcision of minors as an ethically problematic form of iatrogenic injury. American Medical Association Journal of Ethics. 2017;19(8):815–24. doi:10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.8.msoc2-1708.
  61. Reis-Dennis S, Reis E. Are physicians blameworthy for iatrogenic harm resulting from unnecessary genital surgeries?. American Medical Association Journal of Ethics. 2017;19(8):825–33. doi:10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.8.msoc3-1708.
  62. "Mr Hutchinson on circumcision". Retrieved 2010-01-03.
  63. 1 2 3 Gollaher DL (1994). "From ritual to science: the medical transformation of circumcision in America". Journal of Social History. 28 (1): 5–36. doi:10.1353/jsh/28.1.5.
  64. John Harvey Kellogg (1888). Plain Facts for Young and Old. F. Segner & Co. ISBN 0-585-23264-4. Archived from the original on 2015-02-21.
  65. Robert Darby. "The barbarity of circumcision, 1890. Herbert Snow's attempt to turn the tide". Retrieved 2009-06-05. Snow's book may be viewed here.
  66. Paige KE (May 1978). "The Ritual of Circumcision". Human Nature: 40–48.
  67. Gairdner DM (1949). "The fate of the foreskin: a study of circumcision". Br Med J. 2 (4642): 1433–7. doi:10.1136/bmj.2.4642.1433. PMC 2051968. PMID 15408299.
  68. 1 2 3 Robert, Darby; Laurence Cox (2009). "Objections of a Sentimental Character:The Subjective Dimensions of Foreskin loss". In Chantal Zabus. Fearful Symmetries: Essays and Testimonies Around Excision and Circumcision. Editions Rodopi B.V. p. 150. ISBN 978-90-420-2572-1.
  69. Associated Press in San Francisco Examiner with UPI Photograph (29 September 1980). "Protest Against Circumcision". San Francisco Examiner. p. B4.
  70. 1 2 3 Milos, Marilyn; MacRis, D (March–April 1992). "Circumcision: A Medical or a Human Rights Issue?". Journal of Nurse-Midwifery. 37 (2:Suppl.): 87S96S. doi:10.1016/0091-2182(92)90012-R. PMID 1573462. Retrieved 2008-10-08.
  71. 1 2 Hammond T. A preliminary poll of men circumcised in infancy or childhood [PDF]. BJU Int. January 1999;83(Supplement 1):85–92. doi:10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1085.x. PMID 10349419.
  72. Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau, Freud and circumcision, chronicle of an unconscious trauma
  73. B. Spock, Circumcision - It's Not Necessary Redbook, April 1989
  74. American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. Circumcision policy statement. Pediatrics. 2012;130:585–586. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-1989. PMID 22926180.
  75. American Academy of Pediatrics. Male circumcision. Pediatrics. 2012;130(3):e756. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-1990. PMID 22926175.
  76. Hill G. Informed Consent for Circumcision. Southern Medical Journal. August 2002 [Retrieved 2009-06-05];95(8):946. doi:10.1097/00007611-200208000-00037. PMID 12190244.
  77. "Voluntary medical male circumcision: a core campaign to reach the Fast-Track Targets". UNAIDS. 17 October 2016.
  78. A framework for voluntary medical male circumcision: effective HIV prevention and a gateway to improved adolescent boys' & men's health in Eastern and Southern Africa by 2021 (PDF). World Health Organization. 2016.
  79. Dowsett, GW; Couch, M (May 2007). "Male circumcision and HIV prevention: is there really enough of the right kind of evidence?". Reproductive health matters. 15 (29): 33–44. doi:10.1016/S0968-8080(07)29302-4. PMID 17512372.
  80. Myers, A; Myers, J (May 2007). "Male circumcision--the new hope?". South African Medical Journal. 97 (5): 338–41. PMID 17599212.
  81. 1 2 Boyle GJ, Hill G. Sub-Saharan African randomized clinical trials into male circumcision and HIV transmission: Methodological, ethical and legal concerns. J Law Med. 2011;19(2):316–34. PMID 22320006.
  82. 1 2 3 "Circumcision and STIs". NHS. 26 March 2009.
  83. Tobian, AA; Serwadda, D; Quinn, TC; Kigozi, G; Gravitt, PE; Laeyendecker, O; Charvat, B; Ssempijja, V; Riedesel, M; Oliver, AE; Nowak, RG; Moulton, LH; Chen, MZ; Reynolds, SJ; Wawer, MJ; Gray, RH (26 March 2009). "Male circumcision for the prevention of HSV-2 and HPV infections and syphilis". The New England Journal of Medicine. 360 (13): 1298–309. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0802556. PMC 2676895. PMID 19321868.
  84. Friedman, B; Khoury, J; Petersiel, N; Yahalomi, T; Paul, M; Neuberger, A (September 2016). "Pros and cons of circumcision: an evidence-based overview". Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 22 (9): 768–774. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2016.07.030. PMID 27497811.
  85. Kaufman, MR; Smelyanskaya, M; Van Lith, LM; Mallalieu, EC; Waxman, A; Hatzhold, K; Marcell, AV; Kasedde, S; Lija, G; Hasen, N; Ncube, G; Samuelson, JL; Bonnecwe, C; Seifert-Ahanda, K; Njeuhmeli, E; Tobian, AA (2016). "Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health Services and Implications for the Provision of Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision: Results of a Systematic Literature Review". PLoS One. 11 (3): e0149892. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149892. PMC 4777442. PMID 26938639.
  86. "Male circumcision: Global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety and acceptability" (PDF). World Health Organization. 2007. Retrieved 2016-01-01.
  87. 1 2 Hill G, Geisheker JV. Doctors Opposing Circumcision. Male infant circumcision: A brief overview of the issues; February 2016 [Retrieved 28 August 2017].
  88. 1 2 3 A Bill to End Male Genital Mutilation in the U.S.
  89. Boyle GJ, Svoboda JS, Price CP, Turner JN.. Circumcision of Healthy Boys: Criminal Assault?. J Law Med. 2000;7:301–310.
  90. Doctors Opposing Circumcision Genital Integrity Policy Statement
  91. 1 2 3 McAteer, Oliver (2 August 2017). "Why America must stop circumcising baby boys and start viewing it as mutilation". Metro News. London. Retrieved 8 August 2018.
  92. Students for Genital Integrity. Circumcision hurts! Stop it please.; 2003 [Retrieved 27 August 2017].
  93. International Coalition for Genital Integrity
  94. National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers. Home Page [Retrieved 27 August 2017].
  95. Member organizations of the International Coalition for Genital Integrity
  96. Declaration of the International Coalition for Genital Integrity
  97. International Symposia on Circumcision, Sexual Mutilations, and Genital Integrity
  98. Changing a harmful social convention, UNICEF
  99. Kruseman, Arie Nieuwenhuijzen. "Prof. Dr. Chairman of KNMG". knmg. Retrieved 25 December 2015.
  100. US MGM Bill Status Archived February 20, 2006, at the Wayback Machine.
  101. Virgil H. Goode, Jr. Letter to Ms. Davis; 14 March 2005 [Retrieved 27 August 2017].
  102. Nordic Association of Clinical Sexology. Statement on non-therapeutic circumcision of boys; 10 October 2013 [Retrieved 22 August 2017].
  103. Omer Farooq Khan. Circumcision no longer acid test to identify Indian spies. The Times of India. 11 April 2009.
  104. "Explanation of opposing circumcision in Israel".
  105. "one of many protests in Israel for children's rights".
  106. Krieger, Hilary (21 November 2002). "A cut above the rest". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 2008-09-26.
  107. Kasher, Rani (23 August 2017). "It's 2017. Time to Talk About Circumcision". Haaretz. Tel Aviv. Retrieved 4 September 2017.
  108. Summer circumcision season deaths reach 23
  109. Alex Duval Smith. Thousands face agony or death after Zulu king's circumcision decree. The Guardian. 16 January 2010.
  110. Statham L. Ceremonial circumcisions botched in NT. Sydney Morning Herald. 11 January 2010.
  111. German court rules circumcision is 'bodily harm'. BBC News. 26 June 2012 [Retrieved 16 September 2017].
  112. Holm Putzke: Die strafrechtliche Relevanz der Beschneidung von Knaben. Zugleich ein Beitrag über die Grenzen der Einwilligung in Fällen der Personensorge. In: Festschrift für Rolf Dietrich Herzberg, Tübingen 2008, p. 669–709 - Translation: Criminal Relevance of Circumcising Boys. A Contribution to the Limitation of Consent in Cases of Care for the Person of the Child, translated by Katharina McLarren.
  113. Circumcision Information Australia. German court rules non-therapeutic circumcision of boys unlawful; 25 June 2012 [Retrieved 29 August 2017].
  114. Intact America. Intactivist of the month: Holm Putzke; August 2012 [Retrieved 27 August 2017].
  115. "Muslim and Jewish groups denounce German circumcision ruling". BBC News. 2012-07-12.
  116. "Beschneidung von Jungen jetzt gesetzlich geregelt" (in German).
  117. Georganne Chapin (7 July 2016). "5 Reasons Why LBGTQ Supporters 'Get' Intactivism". Huffington Post. Retrieved 26 June 2018.
  118. "Three arrested over boy's circumcision in Nottingham". BBC News. 22 June 2017. Retrieved 27 June 2018.

Opposition to circumcision

Jewish associations

Muslim views

Circumcision advocates


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.