Moral Hypocrisy or Intellectual Inconsistency?: A Historical Perspective on Our Habit of Placing Male and Female Genital Cutting in Separate Ethical Boxes

• Published in: Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal Vol. 26; no. 2; pp. 155 - 163
• Main Author: Darby, Robert
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Johns Hopkins University Press 01.06.2016
• Subjects: Adolescent; Age; Australia; Bioethics; Children & youth; Circumcision, Female - adverse effects; Circumcision, Female - ethics; Circumcision, Female - ethnology; Circumcision, Female - legislation & jurisprudence; Circumcision, Male - ethics; Circumcision, Male - ethnology; Clitoris - surgery; Cultural Characteristics; Culture; Disease; Ethical Analysis; Ethical Relativism; Ethics; Europe; Female; Female circumcision; Foreskin - surgery; Funding; Genital mutilation; Human rights; Humans; Informed Consent By Minors - ethics; Judaism; Male; Males; Medical ethics; Mens health; Minors; Penis; Physiology; Public Health; Sexuality; Surgery; Surgical outcomes; Western World; Womens health; World Health Organization; Australia; Europe
• ISSN: 1054-6863; 1086-3249; 1086-3249
• DOI: 10.1353/ken.2016.0018

[...]there is the premodern concept of children as the property of their parents and tribe. International human rights law recognizes the illegitimacy of any coercion being used against a person, designed to compel her to adopt, modify, or reject a cultural practice for the sake of saving, maintaining or strengthening a (typically) dominant culture (International Covenant on Civil and Poltical Rights, Art. 18.2).