They are an adult, just not while they're an infant or child.
Well that's saying a lot.
When parents opt to have a child's teeth, tonsils, birthmarks, extra toes, and so on amputated, it has to be for medically justifiable reasons that leave the child better off than he or she would have been absent the intervention. If the intervention would make the child worse off, it isn't allowed.
Before performing any procedure on a child, should parents simply get in the habit of contacting CPS and their local community members to ensure that the procedure is okay with everyone else?
Or is it to the parent to decide whether tonsillectomies and braces make their child better off or not?
I'm absolutely in favor of having circumcision be subject to the same rationale.
What rationale? You simply said 'leave the child better off'. You didn't indicate who would be deciding what constitutes 'better off'. Most of the discussion in this thread has revolved around whether parents should make the call in what constitutes better off or whether someone else should be allowed to make that call.
You seem to think someone else should make the call. But what is your rationale for that?
Can you explain why you're not?
My rationale is that parents decide what is in the best interest of their children unless there is extremely good reason to legislate that power away from them. So I view circumcision as fitting perfectly within that view as something the parents have the right to make a decision about on behalf of the child.
For the same reason that society cares about vaginas, earlobes, pinky toes, and all the rest of a child's body parts which cannot be summarily amputated for solely religious, cultural, or cosmetic reasons; or no reason at all.
But those are all 'special circumstances'. If you want to admit circumcision to that list, then you'll have to concede that it is 'special' and prove as much to justify its placement on that list.
So why do you think circumcision is so special?
Jon
Love your enemies!
™ Version 4.2
