Circumcision is harmful in every case. This documents some of the catastrophic things that can go wrong with just one method of circumcision. Other methods also go wrong. What risk is acceptable for a child who has no disease and gives no consent?

I have read a lot on circumcision over the years (and I mean a lot), but I read this article in a complete state of horror, mostly with my hand over my gaping mouth. Then, after the horror passed, I broke down and cried. We are doing this to our children. Our healthy, happy, innocent children. And for what? So they can fit some kind of bizarre societal norm? I used to think circumcision was a good, healthy normal practice. But who can read this and witness these atrocities and still think that? Although it was painful to get through, I thank you for posting this information. I truly hope it does some child some good out there. If even one parent reads this and decides to leave their child whole, it will have been worth it!

the pictures say it all. There is no reason good enough to do this to perfectly healthy children.

Hi, I did the Test comment above before writing a big comment.

Like Lars, I have studied circumcision for years, so here are my comments:

In the English-speaking world, circumcision is perpetuated by two things:

1. Jews. During the Nazi times and the holocaust some Jewish males may have denied being Jewish. Since non-Jewish German males were not circumcised, it was easy for the Nazis to check men and if they were circumcised and they had further documentation, they would conclude they had found a Jewish male and put him in a camp. After the holocaust, Jewish doctors in the U.S. decided that rather than stop circumcision among Jews, they would forcefully promote circumcisions among all American non-Jews so that the Jews would blend in and not have the risk of being rounded up again like they were rounded up by the Nazis. Through seniority and teaching in medical schools, Jewish doctors were able to forcefully spread circumcision in the U.S. after WWII, with the result being that all doctors and nurses thought it was standard practice.

2. Mothers. Women are told by magazines and TV that the foreskin does not look sexually attractive. They are also told by doctors and nurses that circumcision is standard practice and that it provides meaningful protection against sexual diseases. Finally, once circumcision had been going on for a couple generations, they also saw that their family members and husbands were circumcised. All of that taken together, when a woman has a baby son, she is strongly in favor of having him circumcised.

If you want to end circumcision in the English-speaking world, you have to break down both of those two trends.

Am horrified by those images after having sent my four weeks old twin boys for the riñg circumcision today. Infact, after hearing them cry continually through the procedure since they were not anaesthesized and their continuous screams when we got home am resolved that circumcision is nothing but Barbaric attack on innocent boys which is not different from FGM. All out there please pray with me for my sons to go through this successfully.

Did you really use a very passive aggressive tone to attack this new mother that was obviously having a tough time? Yeah you seem really reliable

Circumcision of anyone under the age of consent is sexual abuse occasioning actual bodily harm. It is a criminal assault of the child and of the adult that child will become (if he survives).

Assault and bodily harm if for any other crime than 'circumcision' it would be prosecuted in a criminal court and the fact that the law is not prosecuted is ONLY because money is made from it and Jews/Muslims take president above the law. The fact that deaths do occur as a result of the practice (two in recent years come to mind here in the UK) means that the practice is 'Grievous bodily harm' by definition as is wounding.

In the UK it is against the law to give a child a tatoo and ear peircing is considered an injury, animals are protected against it under statutory instrument and the criminal satute of the FGM Act 2003 still to date has NO prosecutions to its name in spite of some 7,000 at risk of FGM.

This barbaric practice on either boy or girl is unlawful and its lack of prosecution is only due to the human filth that protect the crimes and fail to take action.

Sexual discrimination in the UK is also against the law so the terms of the FGM act should be applied to males or the FGM Act is void. Unless there is a defence of urgent medical need where there are no conservative alternatives (rare) there is no conclusion other than to prosecute.

Kevin Elks, Dover, Kent CT16 3DJ [England]