According to The Guardian’s “Lay Scientist”, Martin Robbins, “infant male circumcision is genital mutilation” and “men should have the right to choose circumcision, not have the choice forced upon them”.
To read the full article click here now or read an abridge version of Robbins’ article below:
Infant circumcision involves performing surgery without consent to permanently alter an individual’s genitals. In many cases this is done without good medical justification, for example to force the infant to conform to the expectations of a particular religion.
The practice became popular in the United States as a 19th century tool to stop boys masturbating. Female circumcision is ultimately a brutal means of oppressing women’s sexuality, and male circumcision was intended to achieve the same.
Just as we call sex without consent ‘rape’, circumcision without consent or reasonable justification should be called ‘mutilation’.
If you’re still not convinced, try this thought experiment. Imagine waking up tomorrow morning to find yourself tied to your bed and rendered mute, your naked genitals exposed to the harsh glare of hospital lights.
Your parents have decided that some skin should be hacked from your penis; perhaps so you can be forced into their religion, perhaps because they don’t trust you to clean yourself in the shower, or perhaps simply because they think your penis should look more like your father’s.
If you don’t like the thought of this happening to you, if this offends your belief in self-determination or the rights you have over what happens to your body, then how can you justify this practice being inflicted on infants?
Infant circumcision without medical justification should be called what it is – genital mutilation. Deliberately inflicting injury on a baby in order to enforce their conformity with a religion, or to satisfy their parents’ views on what a penis should look like, is a sick act.
It has no place in a modern society. Infant circumcision – regardless of gender – should be stopped.