Rose started it.

At Blinded Trials (probably my favourite sub-blog here at the League), Rose has a post up titled, Why male circumcision is (sometimes) morally kosher. I could not disagree more (keeping in mind that we’re talking about routine infant circumcision – grown ups can do what they want). However, I don’t have the stomach to get into the weeds of that comment section (circumicison discussions always get nasty), however, I did write a series of posts on circumcision last year, so I’ll just offer those – they can be found here, here and here.

Bonus link: Here’s Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Bonus links: Take a trip in the way-back machine and read Freddie while he was still writing for the League, here and here.

Jonathan McLeod

Jonathan McLeod is a writer living in Ottawa, Ontario. (That means Canada.) He spends too much time following local politics and writing about zoning issues. Follow him on Twitter.


  1. 1) Thanks!

    2) You don’t want to get bogged down in our comments section? But look at all the fun we’re having!

    3) Seriously, thanks for the links to your thoughts on the subject.

  2. I totally love the title of this post.

    I don’t feel comfortable arguing the nitty-gritty of harms and benefits. As I said in the post, if there is clear harm, then it should be banned. You clearly think there is harm, others clearly think there isn’t. I’ve read studies pro and con. If you are right about the harms, then you are right about the need to ban it.

    My interest is much less in circumcision as such, more more in moral obligations to children and the nature of consent in childhood.

  3. And I agree about avoiding the comments section of that post. It calls to mind a line from Auntie Mame. “How…vivid.”

Comments are closed.