Circumcision is a procedure that rarely harms anyone (aside from a tiny number of... accidents), and is, of course, an important element of Jewish custom (forgive me if I have phrased this clumsily). More to the point, talk of babies and 'consent' misses the fundamental practicality that babies are in no position to consent to anything, be it how they are fed, where they are taken, the style of their hair (I mean on that point I came out of the womb with a full head of Michael Heseltine hair) etc. They are, to all intents and purposes, the property of their parents (a special kind of property to be sure but property none the less), and so the decision for circumcision is really up to the mother and the father.
But you have to draw the line somewhere, no? I mean the huge amount of Baby P scenarios where social services deferred to clearly deficient parents suggest that view is a bit naive in practice no? (No, I'm not saying you support child abuse, but clearly circumcision is on another level than a silly haircut)
Well, of course, in fact I believe the state should have more power to intervene in cases such as that of Baby P. However, circumcision is clearly not a harmful procedure and is in no way a form of child abuse - I mean, if we take the Jewish example, it's not as if Jewish parents circumcise their children for abusive reasons. People can quibble about consent all they want, but in the case of young babies it's not really a useful concept. I'm not attempting to be edgy (Lord knows I'm not clever enough for that type of thing), but I really do think this is an area where our modern obsession with 'rights' has, to use a cringey phrase, 'gone mad'.
Poll
