Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Should Infant Circumcision Be Banned?
Circumcision violates body autonomy.
It should be banned - on the basis that no irreversible unnecessary medical procedure should be inflicted on an individual without their informed consent.
Unlike an adult, a small child cannot understand the implications of circumcision, and is therefore incapable of consenting to the procedure.
Convention on the Rights of the Child
grants children protections and certain rights from having a circumcision against their own choice.
The ritual contradicts the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 24(3):
Circumcision is a gross over-reach of parental authority.
Parents must live with their decision and therefore do what is best for their child. Every family is different. What is best for one may be totally offensive for another.
Bodily integrity applied to circumcision (as opposed to the original
) is a new concept that doesn't necessarily have any real standing as a human right.
The autonomy argument presupposes a status of independence which babies do not have.
Given that the child is unable to offer an opinion either way, the wish of the child's parents is the best proxy for the interests of the child.
The vast majority of developed countries have laws granting parents almost absolute autonomy in regards to making choices for their children (excluding criminal abuse of course).
So do childhood vaccinations, yet most reasonable people would agree that the benefits are worthwhile.