Article info
PDFResponse
On the impermissibility of infant male circumcision: a response to Mazor (2013)
- Correspondence to Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon, 1108 S. Corning St. #4, Los Angeles, CA 90035, USA; eliungar{at}mac.com
Citation
On the impermissibility of infant male circumcision: a response to Mazor (2013)
Publication history
- Received May 23, 2013
- Revised August 4, 2013
- Accepted August 16, 2013
- First published September 6, 2013.
Online issue publication
April 27, 2016
Article Versions
- Previous version (27 April 2016).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
Other content recommended for you
- The child's interests and the case for the permissibility of male infant circumcision
- Infant circumcision: the last stand for the dead dogma of parental (sovereignal) rights
- Veracity and rhetoric in paediatric medicine: a critique of Svoboda and Van Howe's response to the AAP policy on infant male circumcision
- After Cologne: male circumcision and the law. Parental right, religious liberty or criminal assault?
- What philosophers can contribute in the face of fundamental empirical disagreement: a response to Benatar and Lang
- Circumcision of male infants as a human rights violation
- Value judgment, harm, and religious liberty
- Is infant male circumcision an abuse of the rights of the child? Yes
- Is infant male circumcision an abuse of the rights of the child? No
- Claimed by culture: circumcision, cochlear implants and the ‘intact’ body