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.
Agreed. "Property" is a clumsy bit of phrasing, but the concept is correct. The family is a fundamental institution to our society. Parents are charged with raising their children, and the vast majority do so with the best intentions to the best of their abilities. The state interfering in parenting choices smacks of authoritarianism even at the best of times, and has great potential to be abused.
With that in mind, I am opposed to the state to intervening in a parent's decision making unless the child is being severely harmed. Circumcision doesn't come remotely close to meeting that threshold.
Poll
