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