NOCIRC's position is based on the fact that not one national or international medical association in the world—including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association—recommends routine infant circumcision and now, recognizing the harm and life-long consequences, some are recommending against it.
Although this frame represents a logical response to the "problem" as entrepreneurs originally sought it: that is the medical industry's acceptance and promotion of routine circumcision without, in some cases, parental consent or understanding of the procedure, it also implicitly recognizes parents' right to make the decision for their children, and the emphasis on absence of medical benefits has suggested that if some medical benefit were to be found (as has been suggested by some recent studies of the link between HIV-AIDS and circumcision) this would justify the procedure.
More recently, two key actors in the movement - Intact America and the International Coalition for Genital Integrity have reframed the cause by linking it more explicitly to a child rights frame, emphasizing the child's right to choose body modification as an adult:
Intact America envisions a world where children are protected from permanent bodily alteration inflicted on them without their consent, in the name of culture, religion, profit, or parental preference.
Genital integrity is the principle that all human beings—whether male, female or intersexed—have a right to the genitalia they were born with.
The newer "human rights" frame has had some advantages in foreclosing arguments about religious exceptions, health benefits, or cultural relativism. In advocating "genital integrity" as a positive goal rather than an end to "infant male circumcision" intactivists have sought to draw on the discourse of the anti-FGM movement without critiquing or competing with female circumcision efforts. However mainstream human rights organizations have yet to accept the claim that male circumcision is a bodily integrity rights violation, and efforts to "pitch" this idea in global human rights forums have failed so far.
In packaging their claim as a human right, both Intact America and ICGI have emphasized diagnostic framing, particularly testimonial stories of botched circumcisions, and motivational framing by arguing this is a moral rather than a health or cultural issue. However aside from promoting information in order to make it easier for parents to choose not to circumcise, these have done limited diagnostic framing and proposing of solutions. Disparate movement actors have proposed different "solutions" - including a failed effort to ban the practice in the state of Massachusetts - but the movement lacks a unifying platform for policy change.