Zero Tolerance for Genital Mutilation: a Review of Moral Justifications
- PDF / 429,703 Bytes
- 13 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 74 Downloads / 189 Views
SOCIOCULTURAL ISSUES AND EPIDEMIOLOGY (J ABDULCADIR & D BADER, SECTION EDITORS)
Zero Tolerance for Genital Mutilation: a Review of Moral Justifications Brian D. Earp 1 Accepted: 26 October 2020 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Purpose of Review To summarize and critically evaluate the moral principles invoked in support of zero tolerance laws and policies for medically unnecessary female genital cutting (FGC). Recent Findings Most of the moral reasons that are typically invoked to justify such laws and policies appear to lead to a dilemma. Either these reasons entail that several common Western practices that are widely regarded to be morally permissible and are currently treated as legal—such as intersex “normalization” surgery, female genital “cosmetic” surgery performed on adolescent girls, or infant male circumcision—are in fact morally impermissible and should be discouraged if not legally forbidden; or the reasons are being applied in a biased and prejudicial manner that is itself unethical, as well as inconsistent with Western constitutional requirements of equal treatment of individuals before the law. Summary In the recent literature, only one principle has been defended that appears capable of justifying a zero tolerance stance toward medically unnecessary FGC without relying on, exhibiting, or perpetuating unjust cultural or moral double standards. This principle holds that, in countries whose ethicolegal traditions are shaped by a foundational concern for individual rights, respect for bodily integrity, and personal autonomy over sexual boundaries, all non-consenting persons have an inviolable moral right against any medically unnecessary (or medically deferrable) interference with their genitals or other private anatomy. In such countries, therefore, all non-consenting persons, regardless of age, race, ethnicity, parental religion, assigned sex, gender identity, or other individual or group-based features, should be protected from medically unnecessary genital cutting, regardless of the severity of the cutting or the expected level of benefit or harm. Keywords Female genital cutting . Female genital mutilation . Intersex normalization surgery . Male circumcision . Zero tolerance . Bodily integrity . Genital autonomy . Sexual rights
Introduction In Australia at the time of writing, a person may be imprisoned for up to 7 years who either “excises, infibulates or otherwise This article is part of the Topical Collection on Sociocultural Issues and Epidemiology * Brian D. Earp [email protected] 1
Yale University and the Hastings Center, 2 Hillhouse Avenue, New Haven, CT, USA
mutilates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person,” or “aids, abets, counsels, or procures a person to perform” any of those acts, collectively defined as “female genital mutilation” or “FGM” for legal purposes. The only exception to this prohibition is for procedures that are necessary to the health of the person and which are performed
Data Loading...
