The post below seems to retreat entirely from the argument that
somehow circumcision bans are impermissible because 'don't harm the body' is a
semi-religious, ethical view - and rightly so, because most important laws, as
I argued below, rest on such unproven and unprovable
I appreciate Alan's argument, and I agree that when it comes to
medical decisions, parents are given considerable latitude. The question,
though, is to what extent does that - and should that - extend to decisions
that are not made for medical reasons, and that risk significant
Eugene --
I think the problem with your non-medical reasons paragraph below is that it
misstates the proper attitude of the state towards religious freedom and
religious reasons given by parents. The state is supposed to be neutral on
claims of religious obligation, not merely tolerant of
If that is correct, neither the child nor the parent will be able to opt to
circumcise the boy until he turns 18. Yet, as a prior post pointed out, most
males who wish to be circumcised for religious reasons would rather that the
procedure occur in infancy.
Accurately predicting what the child
Alternatively, one might argue that this is a medical decision for where there
is scant evidence that it causes any harm at all (unlike say female mutilation)
and there is some medical evidence that it is valuable. In that sense it goes
back to the parent to make the decisions.
Again, as I
