The ethics of infant male circumcision - University of Oxford
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 лип 2013
- Earp, B. D. (2013). The ethics of infant male circumcision. Invited lecture, Uehiro Seminar Series. University of Oxford. June 7. Oxford, England, UK.
In this talk, I argue that the non-therapeutic circumcision of infant males is unethical, whether it is performed for reasons of obtaining possible future health benefits, for reasons of cultural transmission, or for reasons of perceived religious obligation. I begin with the premise that it should be considered morally impermissible to sever healthy, functional genital tissue from another person's body without first asking for, and then actually receiving, that person's informed consent-otherwise, this action would qualify as a criminal assault. I then raise a number of possible exceptions to this rule, to see whether they could reasonably serve to justify the practice of infant male circumcision in certain cases. I conclude with a discussion of the similarities and differences between male and female forms of genital cutting, and I argue that anyone who is committed to the view that infant male circumcision is morally permissible must also accept the moral permissibility of some (though not all) forms of female genital cutting. However, as I argue, neither type of cutting should be allowed absent clear consent of the individual and/or strict medical necessity.
For more on the ethics of circumcision, see:
blog.practicale...
For Brian D. Earp's academic page, see: oxford.academia...
This is great. Circ is utterly BARBARIC!
Fabulous presentation. Very informative. I wrote a medical ethics paper on routine infant male circumcision in nursing school.
Male circumcision is male genital mutilation and is a human rights issue
@lovefunkrockmusic : circumicision is much better then intack * for health, not just because religion, in US most of native American are circumcised, also in Australia who were born before 1970.
@@mossmanagementparis1846 I'm a circumcised American man, & also a physician & in the know, & your statement is 100% wrong. Circumcision is not better than (as opposed to "then," learn how to write) intact (as opposed to "intack," again, learn how to write). You probably have no clue how ignorant your statement is. Do your research & get properly informed before making ignorant statements on any social media, & spell everything correctly. At least then, you can post comment & not come across as ignorant. The statements you make should live up to the photo that you post, if that's actually a photo of you. :)
@@Joe_Laughs you prefer intact, right. Disgusting.
@@mossmanagementparis1846 The main point about the presentation is that males should have the right to make the choice of circumcision themselves when old enough to consent.
I don't have penis preference either way. What I said is that for any male, it is better to be natural intact as opposed to being circumcised. Your preference for circumcised penis indicates you are either female or male homosexual. You are entitled to your preferences. Your initial comment said circumcised is better, & I'm pointing out that circumcised is certainly not better for the owner of the penis, which is well presented & discussed in the presentation. If you believe otherwise, you are uninformed, & therefore ignorant about natural male anatomy. That's why I said research & get informed as to not come across as ignorant.
I'm not criticising your preference for sexual activity with a circumcised male. Your stating circumcised is "better" is your preference for sexual partner with circumcised penis, & those of us that read your comment wonder why you would write your preference in opposition to factual informatin presented in the video. The presentation is accurate & proves circumcised penis is not better for the owner of the penis. I am knowledgeable about what I will not experience because of being circumcised, & most American men don't know. Circumcision cannot be undone even with foreskin restoration.
Just as you feel intact penis is "Disgusting," lot's of folks feel homosexual activity is "Disgusting." For many folks, men's natural intact genitals are not as disgusting as your having anal intercourse or oral sex with other men. The main point of the presentation is to advocate for the rights of all males, instead of your sexual preference for circumcised penis. Infants should never be subjected to torture, & the way it is practiced in the United States, infant circumcision is an extremely torturous practice & human rights violation against all infants who experience it. That's what the presentation is about, & your comment indicates you have missed the entire message.
Excellent presentation.
Excellent presentation Brian!
American here, 40 years old male, speaking of course only for myself, I was absolutely devastated and Furious when I finally understood what had happened to me and why. To learn that the people who we're supposed to care about you the most, didn't even bother to do any research before agreeing to let someone cut an important part of my body off, because it was the fashion to do so. Absolutely Unforgivable. All circumcised males in the US should collectively sue the United States government for allowing this to happen under their watch
There is no legitimate reason for circumcision (unless medically necessary). As with all inequality, unfair treatment or suffering which is exclusive to males, there is no uproar or public condemnation. In no other context can you take a knife to an infant and cut parts of it off!!
there are enough men for a class action lawsuit but attorneys for the right of the child said we cant
Why can't you?
Excellent. I wish every adult in America would watch this.
Such a fascinating lecture. Thank you
It can be said I consented to male circumcision, but I did not consent to genital mutilation, which happens to be all foreskin amputation and its prominent penile scarification that can't be hidden unless restored. In truth!, it's more proper to squarely term this genital amputation as 'Circumutilation'.
Not only in FInland ,but I think in most of Europe ,as well as in most of the world were it is uncommon,it is universally rare
i want the american medical industry to pay for all the baby boys they have harmed. quickly.
Damn, great presentation!
Great talk, Brian! Love your videos!!
The american medical industry will pay for this
Is this the university of Oxford in England,if so in England it is not not normal practice by the non Jewish or Muslim white mayority.Brian you would be better addressing this at Princeton,Yale,Cornell,Harvard in the USA where it is a mayor problem.
Excellent. Would it be possible to see the discussion after your presentation?
Well done
i know its the most erogenous part and i was mutilated, as a baby . mucous membrane is one hint 30 to 50 percent of penile skin shaft is another what they .are cutting it off of is another hint.
That 'unless medically necessary' caveat. I would add to that that in Finland perhaps 1 in 16,000 men are circumcised. Most of these are very elderly and / or otherwise not in the best shape.
Mastectomy (breast removal) is also done sometimes to older or elderly women who aren't in the best shape but nobody advocates removal of breast buds at infancy it's just stupid and assumes everyone will need the procedure in the future.
25:40 💔
It is entirely unethical, and if only some stupid “lawsuit,” would do, except other than make one appear litigious.
Where are his statistics and fact of UTI, HIV, or the millions who are forced to get it as adults, this is so juvenile and disturbing
this video is outdated and perhaps better deleted
how so?
Such a fascinating lecture. Thank you