Vaccination and Infant Circumcision Are Not Comparable

Quick links to products available in the Campaign for Genital Integrity . . .

     INFORMATIVE VIDEOS:
     Facing Circumcision Eight Physicians Tell Their Stories
     Restoration in Focus   Instructional Video for Foreskin Restoration
     They Cut Babies, Don't They?   One Man's Struggle Against Circumcision
     Whose Body, Whose Rights?   Award-winning documentary seen on PBS!

THE BOOK THAT EXPOSES IT ALL:
     Circumcision Exposed
Rethinking a Medical and
Cultural Tradition

FORESKIN RESTORATION with:
The P.U.D. new low pricing!
and The VacuTrac at special pricing!
plus the Foreballs device

Vaccination and Infant Circumcision
are Not Comparable

Tim Hammond
NOHARMM Newsletter, p. 4, August 1994

NOTE: Links with a right-facing blue arrow will take you off this site.

Some people attempt to defend circumcision as just one more difficult decision a parent must make about their child's well-being, similar to the decision of whether or not to subject their child to vaccination. Drawing such a parallel however, is like comparing apples to oranges.

One cannot compare a quick needle stick with a 15-minute unanesthetized surgical alteration of the genitals.
Vaccination adds scientifically-engineered toxins to the body, whereas circumcision surgically removes a healthy and functional body part.
Vaccination does not deprive individuals of functional body parts. Infant circumcision always deprives the male of the protective and sexually enhancing gliding mechanism of the foreskin, as well as 12-15 sqaure inches of genital tissue and more than 240 feet of nerves and thousands of nerve endings contained in the foreskin. Consequently, infant circumcision reduces a male's full range of natural penile functioning.

Vaccination can prevent common diseases over which individuals may have little control. Circumcision does not prevent any disease. At best, circumcision is only alleged to "reduce risk" of certain rare diseases, all of which are behavior-related. Behavior-related diseases are those over which individuals have absolute control by virtue of their hygiene and sexual choices (e.g., penile cancer and other sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS).

Vaccines have been tested for risks and outcomes. Circumcision has not undergone any such clinical trials, and its alleged benefits are based on speculation or association, not proof of cause and effect. All of the medical studies cited by circumcision advocates to support circumcision have been retrospective observations that only suggest a reduction in disease. An intellectually honest researcher will admit that retrospective studies are less reliable than prospective studies.

Before infant circumcision was instituted on a widescale basis in the U.S. there was no prospective (or even retrospective!) research done to investigate infant circumcision's long-term adverse outcomes on men.

Both sexes are vaccinated. In the U.S., however, only boys are singled out for circumcision. If removal of various genital parts can "improve hygiene" or "reduce risk of infection," then such an intervention should prove beneficial for both sexes. This suggests that either the "benefits" of circumcision are being denied to girls, or that non-surgical alternatives for improving hygiene and reducing infection are being withheld from boys.

Unlike vaccinations, botched circumcisions are a regular occurrence, often resulting in the need for reparative surgery or gender reassignment.

Adult dissatisfaction with childhood vaccination is not commonly expressed. In the U.S. and elsewhere, however, millions of men either resent or are unhappy with their circumcision, and increasing numbers are involved in foreskin restoration methods.

Vaccination is recommended by many medical associations. No national medical association in the world recommends infant circumcision, because it offers no significant health or medical advantage over the intact state for the vast majority of males.

Unlike vaccination, motivations for circumcision are based largely on religion and social custom. One must consider these influences when they hear circumcision advocates drawing a parallel between circumcision and vaccination.

The comparison between vaccination and infant circumcision, especially when advocated by a health professional, should raise red flags in the minds of the media and the general public. The intelligence and the intellectual honesty of anyone who fails to distinguish between these two interventions should be seriously questioned.

More Pages Related to Male & Female Circumcision