Circumcision as Human-rights Violation: Assessing Benatar and Benatar

Michael Benatar and David Benatar (2003) conclude that amputating normal, natural, protective, and sexually important tissue from a nonconsenting infant does not constitute abuse but is rather a matter for parental discretion. But to arrive at this conclusion, they ignore several important points.

First, the prepuce is a unique, complex structure necessary for normal sexual function and is composed of thousands of specialized nerves, Meissner's corpuscles, vascular systems, and stimuli receptors that have evolved over millions of years to maximize human sexual experience (Winkelmann 1956; 1959; Lakshmanan and Prakash 1980; Taylor et al. 1996; Halata and Spaethe 1997; Fleiss et al. 1998; Cold and McGrath 1999; Cold and Taylor 1999; O'Hara and O'Hara 1999). The inherent pain aside,¹ such an amputation deprives an individual of a normal penis and of the full range and depth of sexual pleasure it provides. It should be self-evident that cutting off primary sexual tissue unalterably changes the way sexual acts are perceived and performed. To assert otherwise places the burden of proof upon those who would alter the normal anatomy and natural sexual experience. The Benatars fail to provide such proof.

Second, not one national medical society in the world recommends infant circumcision. This includes the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Cancer Society, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In fact, most world medical societies recommend against it and agree with the conclusions of the Canadian Paediatric Society that in the absence of unequivocal medical indication, "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed" (CIRP 2002).

Third, worldwide, circumcision of male or female genitals is relatively rare. Other than as religious rite, nontherapeutic circumcision is almost never performed in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, non-Muslim Asia (with the exception of South Korea), or Latin America. Approximately 85% of the world's male population and 98% of the world's female population are not circumcised (Wallerstein 1985). The United States is the only country in the world to circumcise a majority of infant males for nonreligious reasons.

Fourth, the authors hint, but choose not to demonstrate, that the individual's right to bodily integrity can be abridged for cultural, religious, or other perceived "benefits" imposed by force. This suggestion goes in the face of centuries of social evolution and law that has come to recognize the individual's right to bodily integrity against coercive pressures that do not have compelling, demonstrable, medical benefit (Brigman 1984; Dwyer 1994; Denniston 1996; Chessler 1997; Smith J. 1998; Povenmire 1999; Price 1999; Van Howe 1999; Boyle et al. 2000; Somerville 2000; Svoboda et al. 2000; Dritsas 2001). This sovereignty asserts that children are not the chattel of parents, physicians, the group, or nation. Their genitals are not communal property. Others have no right to impose, by force, their cultural, religious, or aesthetic preferences upon an individual's body without substantial medical benefit.

Numerous human-rights documents declare the self-evident but hard-won right to bodily integrity. Forced male circumcision has been recognized as a human-rights violation in at least one legal case and in two United Nations reports. It can be deemed a violation in accordance with such documents as the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 13). On 26 January 2001 the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child received conclusions and recommendations on reports submitted to it by nine countries. Among the conclusions received was that all children "should be allowed to decide at 21 years of age whether or not they want to be circumcised" (United Nations 1998). For these reasons and many others, the Swedish parliament has recently voted unanimously to consider whether infant male circumcision is...