MGM, easy killer. Not everyone here is trolling with bait, ok?
Glad to hear you're anti-abortion. My point is simple; how many choices are made for a child, because they are child, by their parents? What if I convert to JW later on, can I sue my parents for getting me immunizations and having blood drawn, or medical care against my will? THere's a logical progression of the "child rights" movement, and circumcision is a test case. Should they choose their education? Should they choose their diet? Which choices are theirs to make, and which arent? And for those that are pro-choice, I don't understand how a few centimeters makes the difference in determining free agency.
I think to some degree the significance, permanency, and level of the choice has to be weighed. Happy meals - meh. I think it's pretty sleazy of McDonalds to market fat-riddled meals to kids with toys, but in the end, I don't think legislation is needed there. They're exercising their 1st amendment rights. Their "speech" is pretty bad, but it's their right to do that IMHO.
Diet? You're talking serious health benefits there, and after they hit 18 they are free to undo whatever benefits a parent chosen diet provided.
Education? Again, serious benefits, and you're looking at something that can't be done later in life (you can certainly learn, but the mind is far more receptive to information at younger ages).
Circumcision/male genital mutilation is different. What we're talking about is literally cutting off part of your child's body. The "benefits" of this procedure has long since been debunked, and as to negatives, the foreskin contains a tremendous amount of nerve tissue. Not to get graphic on a family site, but it's the most sensitive part of the male genitalia. Not only that, but it's a procedure that can be easily undertaken later in life if one so chooses. People who convert to a particular religion have it done as an adult fairly regularly.
To me, it's simply a false case of reductio ad absurdem. It's disingenuous to say that because a child cannot make EVERY choice then a parent should have unfettered and unquestioned permission to do with a child what they will. I personally don't have a problem with drawing a line on the permanent removal or modification of body parts - particularly for a merely aesthetic or cultural reason with no medical need present.
Lets consider it from another angle. Put aside tradition, custom, and any bias for a moment. Notice my link above on the Chinese practice of foot-binding. As an outsider to that culture, who sees no value in the practice, do you think that such an act should be permissible to do to a child? I'm guessing no, and with good reason. Now, looking back at circumcision, again, with personal biases and preferences stuck aside, do you not see the parallels?
