I believe non-therapeutic circumcisions in infants is inane and it absolutely blows my mind that anyone thinks it is anywhere near a reasonable idea to do it. That it is even a topic of discussion at all makes me feel like I am in the Twilight Zone. My views are based on instinct, a bias toward non-intervention in medicine and a respect for teleological explanations of physiology.

However, I often hesitate to advocate against infant circumcision because I am often embarrassed by the tactics and behavior of intactivists. I do not agree with any part of Jake's arguments. Yet, he comes across as very reasonable, logical and polite. Some of the "rebuttals" against him do seem, on the surface, petty. It disappoints me. Intactivists, please, have some perspective. You are biased (as am I). You often cite research from biased sources. It is hypocritical to say you have the advantage in these areas. It does the cause a great disservice because critical readers are more likely to dismiss the sound parts of your arguments when they see you make contradictory and spurious claims.

Try to imagine how someone who accepts circumcision as normal thinks about the subject and respond in a way which will not alientate them. That is the only way they will open up and truly consider the facts.

This series of articles is a model for the type of approach I would like to see intactivists take in the future.

More Posts