We pride ourselves on the progress we’ve made in protecting human rights. From gender equality to reproductive rights, society is increasingly moving toward respecting individual autonomy. Yet, when it comes to circumcision—particularly infant circumcision—the debate often seems suspended in time. The practice continues to be widely accepted, with cultural, religious, and social traditions overriding one of the most basic principles of modern ethics: bodily autonomy.
The question, however, remains: Are we sacrificing newborns for tradition? Is it ethical to perform a permanent, irreversible procedure on an infant who cannot consent? In this piece, we explore the ethical implications of circumcising babies and the uncomfortable reality that bodily autonomy is being overridden in the name of tradition and religion.
The Tradition vs. Autonomy Dilemma
At the heart of the circumcision debate is the issue of bodily autonomy—the right of an individual to make decisions about their own body without external interference. While bodily autonomy is a fundamental principle in most aspects of life, it seems to vanish when it comes to circumcising infants.
In many cases, parents make the decision for their children, often based on religious, cultural, or perceived health reasons. But in doing so, they are deciding to permanently alter their child’s body without their consent. The ethical dilemma arises when you weigh the importance of respecting the rights of the child against the traditions upheld by families and cultures.
Dr. Brian D. Earp, an ethicist at the University of Oxford, argues that circumcision performed on non-consenting infants violates a fundamental principle of ethics: the child’s right to bodily integrity. It’s not just about the physical act itself but about the ethical framework within which the decision is made. Parents have the best intentions, but it’s a violation of the child’s right to make irreversible decisions for them at such a young age.
In many cultures, circumcision is performed as a rite of passage, a religious requirement, or simply as a cultural norm. However, the question that ethical philosophers, ethicists, and human rights advocates continue to ask is this: Why does tradition justify violating the basic rights of a child who has no voice in the matter?
A Lack of Medical Justification
Many proponents of infant circumcision argue that the procedure is necessary for health reasons—reduced risks of infections, better hygiene, prevention of diseases like penile cancer, and reduced risk of certain sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). However, these health arguments have been increasingly questioned by medical professionals.
This raises a critical ethical issue: Why perform a medical procedure on a non-consenting infant when the health benefits are not conclusive? If circumcision were truly necessary for health reasons, it would make sense to wait until the individual can make an informed decision. The idea of a procedure that is often unnecessary becomes even harder to defend when weighed against the principle of consent.
The Cultural and Religious Backdrop
Circumcision has deep roots in certain cultural and religious practices, particularly in Jewish and Islamic communities. The decision to circumcise is often linked to religious identity and cultural traditions. For many, circumcision is viewed as a sacred act, a covenant between the individual and their faith. But does this make it ethically justifiable to perform such a procedure on an infant who has no ability to consent to their religious obligations?
While religious freedom is protected by law, does that freedom extend to making irreversible decisions for the next generation, especially when those decisions concern bodily autonomy? In making the decision for a child, parents are imposing their beliefs on an individual who cannot yet make their own choices.
Ethicist and philosopher Dr. Julian Savulescu has pointed out that while we respect religious practices, we must also recognize that children should not be subjected to unnecessary medical procedures unless there is a clear, substantial benefit to them, which cannot be achieved in another way. The ethical question then becomes: Should we respect the practice of circumcision as a religious right, or should we protect the right of the child to remain intact and make that decision for themselves when they are older?
The Psychological and Physical Consequences
It’s easy to dismiss the psychological impact of circumcision, especially when the child is too young to remember the procedure. However, there are studies suggesting that even early childhood trauma can have long-lasting psychological effects. Dr. George C. Denniston, a leading advocate against circumcision and founder of the organization Doctors Opposing Circumcision, has noted that circumcision can cause significant emotional and psychological damage, leading to issues with body image, sexual identity, and even long-term regrets. In his book “Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma”, Denniston explains that the damage is not only physical but emotional, and this harm is compounded by the fact that many men have no choice in the matter.
Furthermore, while many of the immediate physical risks of circumcision are well-documented—bleeding, infection, and even death—the long-term consequences remain largely understudied. These risks are particularly troubling when there is no clear medical justification for performing the procedure on newborns.
Where Do We Draw the Line?
Perhaps the most uncomfortable question in the circumcision debate is this: At what point does cultural tradition or religious belief cross the line into violating an individual’s rights? If we accept that an individual’s body should be respected from birth, regardless of cultural or religious norms, then circumcision should be questioned as an ethical practice. But, how do we balance respect for tradition with the right to personal autonomy?
For those who argue in favor of circumcision, the case often centers around personal beliefs, health considerations, or the perpetuation of culture. But as the movement against circumcision grows, more and more people are questioning whether we should be making these decisions for a defenseless infant who cannot speak for themselves.
Is it ethical to perform such a permanent and irreversible procedure on a child? Should the decision to circumcise be made solely by those who are capable of giving informed consent, rather than by parents or religious institutions? These are the questions we must face in the ongoing ethical debate over circumcision.
The Impact on Autonomy and Consent
As we continue to grapple with the ethical debate around infant circumcision, it’s important to consider the broader implications of consent and autonomy. We live in a world that increasingly values informed consent—whether it’s for medical procedures, participation in research, or even engaging in daily activities. Yet, when it comes to infant circumcision, consent is not part of the equation.
In a society that upholds individual rights, it seems almost contradictory to allow a permanent, life-altering decision to be made for someone who cannot voice their opinion or understand the consequences. This brings us back to the core issue: the child’s right to decide for themselves when they are able to comprehend the physical, emotional, and cultural ramifications of circumcision. The practice forces a decision on a defenseless child, which is a difficult ethical position to defend, especially when the health benefits are not definitive.
Advocates for bodily autonomy argue that every person has the right to determine what happens to their body. Shouldn’t this principle extend to all individuals, regardless of age? If we believe in respecting the autonomy of individuals, then it seems unjust to make irreversible decisions for them before they have the capacity to understand or consent.
The Growing Movement for Bodily Integrity
While the debate around circumcision has been around for centuries, there has been a noticeable shift in public opinion over the past few decades. More individuals and organizations are joining the movement for bodily integrity, advocating for the rights of infants and children to remain untouched until they are old enough to make informed decisions about their own bodies.
This growing movement is not just about circumcision but about promoting respect for personal autonomy and challenging traditional practices that may infringe upon basic human rights. The push for informed consent is gaining momentum, and with it, the hope that society can move away from outdated practices that disregard the bodily integrity of individuals, especially those who cannot speak for themselves.
As this movement continues to gain ground, it is clear that more people are beginning to question whether the cultural and religious justifications for circumcision are enough to override the ethical considerations surrounding bodily autonomy. Whether or not circumcision is universally accepted may ultimately depend on how we, as a society, redefine our understanding of autonomy and the rights of individuals, regardless of their age or status within a culture. The future of circumcision practices may well hinge on our ability to strike a balance between tradition and the fundamental rights of the child.
No Comments