Christian
What you are saying is that the *right to choose* of males is above the benefits of the procedure.
No, What I am saying is that men can get basically the same benefit at a later date, when they are empowered to make their own decisions.
That is: The common good of the society is above individual rights.
then why don't we force all adult men to get circumcised?!.
Why don't you actually
think a little, dude? Your excuses are just that -- excuses. If public health reasons were valid, we would be pressing every adult to circumcise; but medical professionals have repeatedly concluded that whatever health benefits circumcision may or may no thave, it's not enough to warrant routine neonatal circumcision.
In other words, there is a point where one must give up individual rights in favor of the common good. A simple example of this is that a law could be passed that one must be inoculated against a certain disease. Even if the vaccine has risks associated with it, the State can force us to get the injection against our will.
In theory, this is correct. In practice, no such reasons exist for circumcision.
Clearly, a different case here, there are no common good issues here to consider. The risks of these procedures are much, much greater and are more complex.
but the benefits are also much, much more pronounced! appendicitis is a very common condition, after all.
But, ok do children choose (after recurring infections) whether or not to have their tonsils taken out. Legally, the final choice is of the parents. In a technical sense, to the State, children don't have the right to choose this surgery, only the parents do.
Bingo --
after repeated complicaitons. There are valid reasons to circumcise a child -- valid
medical reasons; there are no valid medical reasons to circumcise infants routinely.
So, if after looking at all the pros and cons of circumcision, parents decide that circumcision is best for their child, then they, not only have the right to choose the procedure, but have a valid medical reason to do so.
they precisely do
not have a right to do absent compelling immediate reasons -- because most of the supposed benefits or circumcision don't manifest until adulthood, at which time each person could make their own decision anyway. So unless you are advocating
legally mandated universal circumcision, you are talking caca.
Victor, this is not a black or white issue. Rights are not absolute.
No, of course not; but with circumcision, there is no compelling reason to circumcise infants universally; and thus absent such a compelling medical reason, circumcision must be considered a violation of the child's rights.
Remember, parents' power of medical decision is only a proxy for the child's such power, and to be used in the child's bvest interest; as long as the child is incapable of consent, the parent's choice is used as a substitute. Had there been medical factors necessitating circumcision
in infancy, the parents would have the power to make that choice; but most of the benefits you listed don't manifest until much later, when the child would be capable of consent. Thus, parents, by electing to circumcise the infant, are making a completely unecessary choice that denies their child a later opportunity to choose for himself.
