Note: This article refers to male circumcision, i.e. partial removal of the foreskin, and not female "circumcision," i.e. female genital mutilation (FGM). FGM, which typically involves direct damage to the vulva itself, is an obvious human rights problem and should not be discussed in the same context as male circumcision.
The Big Question
Does circumcision of male infants represent a human rights violation?Relevant International Human Rights Law
The most directly relevant human rights text is Article 24 of the 1989 Covenant on the Rights of the Child (CRC), particularly section 3:States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.While the article was written with FGM in mind, the two standards outlined in Article 24(3) could also arguably apply to milder procedures such as tattoos, piercings, or partial foreskin removal. The two key questions, with respect to the CRC in particular and subsequently human rights law in general, are:
- Is infant circumcision a traditional practice?
- Is infant circumcision prejudicial to the health of children?
Is Infant Circumcision a Traditional Practice?
Yes. The practice of circumcision as it is known in the west originated in Judaism (see Genesis 17:9-11 and Leviticus 12:3), though it has not historically been observed as a Christian doctrine--Acts 15 states that circumcision is unnecessary, Galatians 5:3-4 goes as far as to describe it as gratuitous, and the Roman Catholic Church even declared it to be a mortal sin in the 15th century (though this doctrine was later rejected). It would be accurate to describe circumcision as a Jewish and Muslim cultural practice that was not widely observed in the Christian world until the late 19th century, when physicians began to believe that it was useful for hygienic purposes.Is Infant Circumcision Harmful?
Maybe. A small number of infants do die as a result of the procedure, though the same could be said of almost any medical procedure performed on infants--and it's really hard to read section 24(3) as if it were intended to ban all unnecessary medical procedures.Medical data is not clear vis-a-vis whether circumcision reduces sexual sensation (some studies say it does, while others say that it decreases the likelihood of sexual dysfunction), reduces the odds of contracting STDs (one study suggests that circumcision could reduce the spread of syphilis), or yields any positive health benefits.
