Children have all sorts of decisions made for them with which they may disagree when they are older. Some merely by virtue of the fact of their birth. And their parents are entrusted with making those decisions, because the child is not sufficiently aware to make them on his own. It’s the height of arrogance for the state to depose parents and substitute their collective judgment, except in extreme cases. If I want to spank a five-year-old son for being naughty, that’s my right as a parent. If I want to bludgeon him with a baseball bat, the state has a duty to stop me, because that is abuse. Same thing with circumcision. A newborn, eight days old, can be circumcised without his consent, because circumcision is part of an ancient tradition claiming Divine authority as its basis. The pain that the child experiences is passing. The alteration of its anatomy is minimal, and arguably an improvement. The damage that would be done by forbidding circumcision of infants would be incalculably greater than that which is done by performing a circumcision. Chances are, the child will not care, might even view the first uncut dingdong he sees in a shower room at a public pool as something weird and freakish. “Where’s your magic fireman, kid?”
A law that forbids infant male circumcision is as oppressive as a law that mandates it. Because it interferes in the parents’ culture and judgment, and in a case that is anything but extreme.
Children have decisions made for them, but a decision that permanently changes their body is not right.
People should get circumcised after 18. That still fulfils God’s will.
And no country is even deliberating, even proposing a law to ban infant circumcision, so the entire diatribe in this article is just hot air like the “Russian collusion: