One response

  1. “In a free society, people choosing to opt out of circumcision should be able to do so without harassment.”

    That is exactly what the Intactivist movement is saying, only we include children among “people” in this context, because if they are opted in without their consent, they can’t opt out later.

    We do not (of course) insist “that like the individual adult, the individual child is the center of the world, a self contained, perfect model of the Sacred Self who should rarely, if ever, be subjected to transcendent bonds of family, history, faith and community.” We just say that he has the right not to by subjected to those bonds being cut into his body before he can resist. And “the bond of faith” is something that only a person of an age of reason can take on.

    Infant male genital cutting is an invasive surgical reduction of a healthy non-consenting person.

    It violates his human right to bodily integrity and bodily autonomy (which we universally acknowledge for every other comparable body part, such as the earlobes or the little toes).

    It violates his freedom to practise the religion of his choice (Sikhism, for example values the intact body, not even cutting the hair),

    It violates his freedom from unreasonable seizures.

    It violates his property rights (and foreskins certainly are property when they sell them).

    It violates his right to equality (girls are federally protected from ANY genital cutting, no matter how minor, and even in the name of religion).

    And even if none of that were true, many, many men are now, thanks to the Internet, coming out and saying they hate that this was done to them. Many are going to tedious lengths to reverse it. Since we never know which babies will grow up to be those men, that alone should be enough not to do it.

Comments are closed.