Female genital mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision: Should there be a separate ethical discourse?

Practical Ethics (2014)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
It is sometimes argued that the non-therapeutic, non-consensual alteration of children‘s genitals should be discussed in two separate ethical discourses: one for girls (in which such alterations should be termed 'female genital mutilation' or FGM), and one for boys (in which such alterations should be termed 'male circumcision‘). In this article, I call into question the moral and empirical basis for such a distinction, and argue that all children - whether female, male, or indeed intersex - should be free from having parts of their genitals removed unless there is a pressing medical indication.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
EARFGM
Revision history
First archival date: 2014-10-19
Latest version: 4 (2016-04-16)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Sex and Circumcision.Brian D. Earp - 2015 - American Journal of Bioethics 15 (2):43-45.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2014-10-19

Total views
1,973 ( #619 of 39,912 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
352 ( #890 of 39,912 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.