Blog article about the subject of infant circumcision. An excerpt:
“The last couple months have seen a flurry of reports in the media (particularly American media) regarding male circumcision and its potential health benefits. However, most of the coverage in the U.S. of male circumcision fails to discuss what I think is the most important issue, the ethics.
Before continuing, though, it is critical to discriminate between the significantly different situations under which circumcision may occur. These include therapeutic and non-therapeutic circumcisions performed on either consenting or non-consenting individuals. A therapeutic circumcision is one which is performed to treat a disease or disorder; a non-therapeutic circumcisions are those done for any other reason. Unless noted otherwise, I am only focusing on non-therapeutic, non-consensual circumcision since it’s the kind most often practiced, particularly in the United States where in my opinion the circumcision debates seem to leave out the most important question, is neonatal circumcision ethical?”
http://genderacrossborders.com/2009/11/06/the-ethics-of-neonatal-circumcision/
Tags: amputation, circumcision, damage, death, double standard, female genital mutilation, FGM, foreskin, functions of the foreskin, genital mutilation, history, human rights, hypocrisy, intact, Intactivism, Intactivist, Judaism, male genital mutilation, medical ethics, MGM, mutilation, risks, sensitivity, sexist
