Abstract
It is not the intent of this article to argue that female genital mutilation should be permitted, nor to judge whether female genital mutilation is worse than routine infant male circumcision. The intent of this article is to force American society, parents, insurance industry, and the medical community to address the routine mutilation of males, a procedure done for purely cultural reasons on nonconsenting babies. It is the author’s position that the routine mutilation of male or female genitalia for other than medical necessity is a violation of basic human rights. A gender-specific law that does not ban male genital mutilation necessarily violates the guarantee of equal protection of law under the Federal Constitution of the United States.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Baer, Z. (1997). Circumcision. In: Denniston, G.C., Milos, M.F. (eds) Sexual Mutilations. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2679-4_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2679-4_21
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-3275-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-2679-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive