Circumcision Ban: Proponents Say They Have "Excess" Signatures

• United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child: Cutting off of part of the male genitalia is a violation of human rights, including such critical rights as the right to bodily integrity, the victim's right to freedom of religion, the right to highest attainable standard of health, the right to protection against torture, and the right to equal protection. Several articles included in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child indicate that circumcision breaches fundamental human rights: • Article 19 provides that states shall take all appropriate measures “ to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violation, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent (s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of a child.” • Article 24(3) urges “abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.” • Article 6 (2) safeguards the survival and development of the child. • Article 36 protects children against all forms of exploitation prejudicial to their welfare. • Article 37 (a) in parts states: “No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment.” There is a need for a careful and sensitive analysis of what constitutes respect for children; for their physical and mental integrity; for their right not to be harmed and in particular, not to have pain intentionally inflicted upon them without medical and therapeutic justification.40 Human rights principles acknowledge that children bear the right to freedom of religion, independent of the wishes of parents or guardians, and that they have the right to demand that this freedom be respected.41 Boyle et al. concluded that: Enforced non-therapeutic genital cutting of unconsenting minors is overdue for recognition by the legal community as sexual mutilation. As we enter the 21st century, appropriate action must be taken to safeguard the physical genital integrity of male children. Fourteenth Amendment, First Amendment's freedom of religion clause - Prince v. Massachusetts:Federal and state laws banning forced female circumcision have been in place since 1997, and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws for all. Also, the Supreme Court placed limits on the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause way back in 1944 (in Prince v. Massachusetts), stating: "Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves."

• "There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene. Partly in the light of the complications which can arise during or after circumcision, circumcision is not justifiable except on medical/therapeutic grounds. Insofar as there are medical benefits, such as a possibly reduced risk of HIV infection, it is reasonable to put off circumcision until the age at which such a risk is relevant and the boy himself can decide about the intervention, or can opt for any available alternatives. "Contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical and psychological complications. The most common complications are bleeding, infections, meatus stenosis (narrowing of the urethra) and panic attacks. Partial or complete penis amputations as a result of complications following circumcisions have also been reported, as have psychological problems as a result of the circumcision. "Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is contrary to the rule that minors may only be exposed to medical treatments if illness or abnormalities are present, or if it can be convincingly demonstrated that the medical intervention is in the interest of the child, as in the case of vaccinations. "Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child's right to autonomy and physical integrity." That is the official position of the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG). But then, Holland never suffered from anti-masturbation hysteria, so circumcision never became customary there. Rabbi Moses Maimonides: Over 800 years ago Moses Maimonides tells the harms of circumcision, also known as the "Rambam", was a medieval Jewish rabbi, physician and philosopher. "...the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a stateas possible." & "The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision."

• If American men had any cajones, this savage practice would have ended years ago.

• Awesome news that males might simply get legal protection equal to what females enjoy. Foreskin feels REALLY good. HIS body, HIS decision.

• On the very, very rare occasions when a foreskin does cause problems later in life, then do something about it at that time. Chopping the foreskins off of boys as a 'preventive' measure is like pulling out a child's teeth to prevent cavities. What a load of nonsense! Mother Nature knows best. The foreskin is there for several reasons, including great sex, which is very threatening to a certain group of folks. Most of the world' men are intact and it's not a problem at all -- they and their intimate partners enjoy their foreskins very much!

• Bravo!! I so look forward to seeing all of our children be equally protected from genital mutilation and this disgusting, barbaric form of abuse. The Africa AIDS studies are flawed and unethical, just the latest in a series of absurd justifications for this mutilation. Education, not amputation! Safer sex practices and the good sense to not engage in risky behavior are the best protections -- always have been, always will be. BTW, how is amputating a foreskin going to prevent transmission of HIV thru sharing dirty needles? Let the adult decide what to do with his/her genitals when they reach the age of majority. The majority of folks are just fine with them the way they are. Also, the 'whole man' is sooooo much more pleasant and enjoyable for a woman.

• "Expanded circumcision has made dramatic reductions in AIDS transmission in Africa. " I think the ban is dumb too, but come on. The link between STDs and foreskin is junk science at its best.

• One can only hope that if this idiocy makes it to the ballots that it be crushed in a landslide and his agenda fails like a flaccid balloon.

• Expanded circumcision has made dramatic reductions in AIDS transmission in Africa. Overall, the foreskin adds risk for STD transmission. Intact foreskin + family history of diabetes can cause complications later in life. This is a private choice for parents and doctors, not government, to make. Boycott the petition and vote No.

• Really?? This guy is wasting his time doing this?

TotalComments: 10