On February 12, 2015, the American Journal of Bioethics published the attached pro-circumcision target article “Ritual Infant Male Circumcision and Human Rights” by Allan J. Jacobs and Kavita Shah Arora, along with the attached responses by six scholars of genital autonomy, Steven Svoboda, Brian Earp, Robert S. Van Howe, Alex Myers, the team of Barry Lyons and Ralph Hurley O’Connor, and the team of Sarah Burgess and Stuart J. Murray. The AJOB later published our close colleague Rob Darby’s response.
The AJOB also simultaneously published the attached responses to Jacobs and Arora written by two supporters of the authors, Gregory L. Bock and Johan Christiaan Bester.
Ritual Male Infant Circumcision: The Consequences and the Principles Say Yes
The Tolerance of Ritual Male Infant Circumcision
Cutting Both Ways: On the Ethical Entanglements of Human Rights, Rites, and Genital Mutilation
Sex and Circumcision
Ritual Male Infant Circumcision and Human Rights
The Jacobs Parental Prerogative Test
Neonatal Male Circumcision, If Not Already Commonplace, Would Be Plainly Unacceptable by Modern Ethical Standards
Growing World Consensus to Leave Circumcision Decision to the Affected Individual
Presumptions Are Not Data and Data Are Often Not Informative
The Mysterious Disappearance of the Object of Inquiry: Jacobs and Arora’s Defense of Circumcision