My apologies - I can’t articulate this well. Maybe someone else can explain it better.
Mutilation of infant boys without their consent is unconstitutional. It infringes their freedom to choose whether they want to be circumcised or not and once the infant is circumcised, if later he wishes that it wasn’t done, he can’t do anything.
Critics of this view may say that it violates religious freedom, however violation of one’s basic rights and choices over what happens to their body takes priority. Regardless, many religious traditions, rites, etc are illegal. Why should circumcision get a pass?
The only exception should be if it’s a medical necessity.
Of course, it should still be available, just not forced like it is with infants. Circumcision should happen as a result of personal choice.
Advocates of circumcision say it is a medical necessity, so you would need to define medical necessity to provide any substantial change from current practices.
Neonatal circumcision provides benefits that circumcision later in life does not provide (example). It is, like many medical decisions made for infants or children, something to be decided by informed parents.
Can you quote the part of the constitution you are referring to? My copy doesn’t mention circumcision. Or, you can quote a SCOTUS decision backing up your assertion.
I happen to agree that there is no compelling reason for circumcision to be done so routinely.
That said, it was done to me… and I can’t see the harm. Did it hurt? I’m sure it did, for a few minutes, but I don’t remember it, and it hasn’t had any major effects on my life, good OR bad.
As Cecil himself once put it, this is MINOR surgery with MINOR pros and MINOR cons.
There is nothing in the (US) constitution about circumcision.
Consent is normally given by the parent(s). The same parent(s) who have the rights to make decisions with respect to their child’s immunization, nutritional choices, education and religious indoctrination.
So, you want parents to be allowed to brainwash their children into requesting mutilation of their genitals?
Stepping out of the poisoned well for a moment… It is at worst arguable whether the procedure is a net positive for the overall health of the child, and despite the fact that the procedure was very common for decades there was no health crisis, mental or otherwise, as a result.
Might as well remove a child’s breasts so as to avoid breast cancer.
I don’t know. I find the whole thing ridiculous, and can’t fathom why so many parents are willing to put their child through that.
I remember holding my newborn son as he screamed when they were taking blood from his ankle and when they gave him his first shots.
I cried.
And this was done for ACTUAL medically sound, NECESSARY, reasons.
Making him go through circumcision either because that’s what everyone’s doing, or worse, because the tribal god of bronze age sheep herders has a thing for baby cocks, is just something that I would never consider, and I have a hard time understanding parent’s that go through with it.
If I had Magic Dictatorial Powers I’d declare infant circumcision outside of immediate medical need to be banned and that’s that. (I’d also outlaw piercing infant girls’ ears as well, for what it’s worth.)
In reality, I recognize that there is tremendous social inertia on this and while I do oppose it, it’s not a hill I’m willing to die on, or even get wounded on. I’d advocate for mandatory childhood vaccinations first, as an example of something I feel to be more important for society as a whole as well as individuals affected.
Okay, serious answer now. The American legal system has always recognized the rights of parents to make decisions on behalf of their children. Including serious and irreversible decisions.
It’s hard to imagine a system that wouldn’t work this way. So if parents, who are presumed to have their children’s best interests at heart, aren’t allowed to make these decisions, who will? Infants can’t make decisions for themselves and the decision making abilities of minors is questionable. The only likely alternative seems to be the government and I don’t see that as a good idea. And it’s worth noting that if we handed child rearing decisions in this country over to the consensus, infant circumcision would be mandatory.
Assuming you are referring to the US Constitution, that document defines and limits the powers of the federal government (and to a lesser extent the state governments), and notes those rights which US residents are guaranteeed. Please explain which specific article of the Constitution you believe should be interpreted as to prohibited private actors from performing circumcision.
I agree, but where do you draw the line? How about pierced ears? Ear and nose gauges for infants? What about neck rings? Or binding feet? Or clitoral-ectomy? All these things have been inflicted by parents on their kids for no other reason than inertia. I am not sure someone couldn’t find some law broken for any of those things, but to me they are all in the same class as circumcision, which is permitted.
