who thinks circumcision is sexual assault

[madbr3991]

circumcision is one of the worst things someone can do to a human. i would say circumcision is as bad as rape. im sorry but if you wanted to cause permanent harm to a baby. to rob a child of the sexual experience he was entitled to. you couldn't do better then circumcision. cutting the genitals of a baby or child stealing the most sensitive part of a babies body. i say circumcision is sexual assault.

what do you think?

[tony12345]

I contend that circumcision is worse than rape, check out my testimony on mgmbill.org

[Joseph]

"Rape?! RAPE??!!! RAPE?!! It’s not just rape!!
I’d far prefer rape!"
~Van Lewis

I'll have to agree; circumcision is far worse than child molestation or even rape; at least with rape, the victim gets to keep his/her whole body.

A circumcision victim has to live with the visual scar, the visually different appearance of the circumcised penis, and the fact that part of his penis is missing for the rest of his life.

All so that he'd have a "pretty penis" like mommy and the doctor wanted it.

[z726]

I'd say assault and battery, whatever the proper legal categorization for this crime would be. It doesn't matter, if nobody has the presence of mind to file charges against the perpetrator. The victim, as a child, would be too young to understand, and the parents would have been conned into thinking it was ok by the doctor.

[peterpink]

In legal terms cutting a part off another person's body with or without their permission is called 'assault' in English Law, so is probably similar in the USA. Cultural blindness (and the cost) stops people taking doctors to court.

My opinion is that circumcision is worse that rape. Rape produces physical and mental damage, the physical can heal. Circumcision produces physical and mental damage, the physical can never heal.

I tell people that I was sexually assaulted the day after I was born.

[deadhand31]

This has been a major contributor to a lot of the rage that I am plagued with over my circ. Most people I have talked to say that it isn't sexual assault simply because my parents had authority, and it was because they wanted what was best for me. However, sexual assault does not take intent into account. A few examples:

Pedophiles never believe that they harm a child. They think they're doing something normal, yet taboo (yes, when psychologically examined, this is what the vast majority of pedophiles actually feel.) So.. since the pedophile doesn't THINK he's harming the child, should we give him a pass?

If I were to touch a woman on the shoulder, if she takes great offense to that, it is technically sexual assault. Any kind of unwanted touching, according to the legal system, classifies as sexual assault if the one being touched FEELS violated or threatened, then it is sexual assault. The fact that I may have just wanted to get her attention is irrelevant.

The problem is that few people really understand that circumcision is not something that is done and over, it's a daily consequence. A woman who is raped can, through counseling, learn to enjoy her sexuality again. A man who is circumcised can go through counseling to help deal with the past, but he will never know 100% of what sex is supposed to feel like.

[photenman]

A law review article was published in 1984 by William E. Brigman called, "CIRCUMCISION AS CHILD ABUSE: THE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES". He argued that circumcision is child abuse. It's online at http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/brigman/. Since then a lot of legal articles have called it child abuse and criminal assault.

The child abuse laws are very straightforward. No one can intentionally injure a child at all.

Also when Congress expressly banned female genital cutting, it found that it already violated federal and state constitutional, statutory and civil laws. That is, it was illegal before Congress expressly banned it. Those same laws that applied already to females apply to males as well.

E.g., it's unconstitutional. It violates the right to security of the person or privacy or bodily integrity. That's the right to genital integrity that you hear about. So even if a court thought/wrote that it was legal, it isn't.

Religious reasons are no defense to child abuse. Parents don't have any right to violate child abuse laws either. Parents have a legal duty to protect their children. And doctors cannot violate child abuse laws. They have a legal duty to protect and not to harm their patients. They cannot lawfully amputate healthy body parts which they themselves call not medically justified.

It's all very clear that's it's illegal. The lawsuits are coming.

[Aussiebloke]

So the charge would be 'child abuse' and not 'sexual abuse'.

[Americut]

Originally Posted by Aussiebloke

So the charge would be 'child abuse' and not 'sexual abuse'.

Sounds like both.

The charge is child abuse. The crime involves the child's sex organ. Yes crime, as explained in Photenman's link.

I don't see why you are concerned with what it's called. If you strap anyone down and cut off a pieces of their genitals, you are sexually assaulting them. Their age is irrelevant. Unless it's a child, well then its also child abuse.

How is this a matter of opinion?

[Joseph]

Originally Posted by Americut

How is this a matter of opinion?

(Shhh! It's NOT! Child molestation is by definition BOTH "child abuse" AND "child sexual abuse." The fallacy in argument Aussie is using is called "appeal to authority." AKA, argumentum ad verecundiam. [see previous posts...])