Should male non-medical infant circumcision be banned?
Normally, we don't allow painful non-medical surgical procedures with permanent effects and without anesthetic to be carried out without informed consent (and thus not on infants), and we also don't usually permit non-medically regulated and trained people to carry out such unnecessary procedures. We obviously ban religious/cultural FGM, don't allow infant tattoos, restrict cosmetic surgery without medical consent, and so on.
If for religious or aesthetic reasons someone wants such a procedure at a later age, then that's one thing. But performing unnecessary genital surgery on infants seem barbaric to me.
Seems to me an obvious case of where states make inconsistent and hypocritical allowances purely out of a pragmatic kowtowing to religious or cultural sensibilities.
Does anyone else wish to see this practice be phased out and made illegal in the near future?
Normally, we don't allow painful non-medical surgical procedures with permanent effects and without anesthetic to be carried out without informed consent (and thus not on infants), and we also don't usually permit non-medically regulated and trained people to carry out such unnecessary procedures. We obviously ban religious/cultural FGM, don't allow infant tattoos, restrict cosmetic surgery without medical consent, and so on.
If for religious or aesthetic reasons someone wants such a procedure at a later age, then that's one thing. But performing unnecessary genital surgery on infants seem barbaric to me.
Seems to me an obvious case of where states make inconsistent and hypocritical allowances purely out of a pragmatic kowtowing to religious or cultural sensibilities.
Does anyone else wish to see this practice be phased out and made illegal in the near future?
