I explain why I think that considerations regarding the opposing rights involved in the practice of circumcision—rights of the individual to bodily integrity and rights of the community to practice its religion—would not help us decide on the desirable policy towards this controversial practice. I then suggest a few measures that are not in conflict with either religious or community rights but that can both reduce the harm that circumcision as currently practiced involves and bring about a change in attitude towards the practice, thus further reducing its frequency. These measures are the compulsory administration of anaesthetics; the banning of the metzitzah b'peh; and having an upper age limit of a few months on non-therapeutic circumcision of minors. I conclude with general considerations on why the steps taken towards the reform of circumcision should be moderate.
- Moral and Religious Aspects
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- After Cologne: male circumcision and the law. Parental right, religious liberty or criminal assault?
- On the impermissibility of infant male circumcision: a response to Mazor (2013)
- Value judgment, harm, and religious liberty
- Rationalising circumcision: from tradition to fashion, from public health to individual freedom—critical notes on cultural persistence of the practice of genital mutilation
- Some principles of Islamic ethics as found in Harrisian philosophy
- Religious circumcision and the Human Rights Act
- The child's interests and the case for the permissibility of male infant circumcision
- Ancient rites and new laws: how should we regulate religious circumcision of minors?
- Further clarity on cooperation and morality
- Male or female genital cutting: why ‘health benefits’ are morally irrelevant