San Francisco to ban Circumcision?

[Trolldor]

Fairly simple, circumcision is aesthetic not medically necessary except in a few rare cases.
Therefore, parents have no more right to state a child should be circumcised than they do to say they should have plastic surgery unless it occurs in those few cases where it is medically necessary.

[eXcommunicate]

I really see the point you're making here. Errrrrrr…

I wasn't making a point; I was asking a question. I am curious about where you draw the line, if you do. Are parents slaves of the children, obligated to fulfill all the childrens' desires without being allowed to make any decisions for them? If they are allowed to make some decisions for their children, which ones?

For that matter, if people are not allowed to decide to be circumcized at age 1 day, but are allowed at age 20 years, what age is the relevant cutoff? Is it the same age the cutoff for giving permission for injections allegedly beneficial for health?

I suspect that most people here who object to adults making the decision to circumcize prepubescent children are still okay with adults making the decisions not to permit the children to have sex, inconsistent as those two positions are. The reason I'm interested in your views is because your views don't seem to have such an internal inconsistency.

They are not inconsistent, because they relate to consent, and the cognitive ability to give such consent. An infant can no more give his consent to have his genitals mutilated than to have himself branded with a hot iron, which apparently you would condone?

Would you support a parent's right to knowingly withhold lifesaving medical attention to their child?