Ritual Male Infant Circumcision and Human Rights

American Journal of Bioethics 15 (2):30-39 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Opponents of male circumcision have increasingly used human rights positions to articulate their viewpoint. We characterize the meaning of the term “human rights.” We discuss these human rights arguments with special attention to the claims of rights to an open future and to bodily integrity. We offer a three-part test under which a parental decision might be considered an unacceptable violation of a child's right. The test considers the impact of the practice on society, the impact of the practice on the individual, and the likelihood of adverse impact. Infant circumcision is permissible under this test. We conclude that infant circumcision may be proscribed as violating local norms, even though it does not violate human rights

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 76,101

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-02-13

Downloads
43 (#273,400)

6 months
1 (#447,139)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Principles of Biomedical Ethics.Tom L. Beauchamp - 1979 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Elements of a theory of human rights.S. E. N. Amartya - 2004 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 32 (4):315–356.
Minimalism about human rights: The most we can hope for?Joshua Cohen - 2004 - Journal of Political Philosophy 12 (2):190–213.

View all 14 references / Add more references