Originally Posted by perspective
...if you listen to this case, the judges are careful not to force a circumcision, because they know forcing that on someone could really mess with the boy, and is not right. (I cant find the judges quote, although he is careful to limit his statement to "a 12 year old boy")
Basically, they are trying like hell not to confront the fact that if the court thinks its might not be in the boys best interest to be circumcised. It would make the case easier if they did just make that choice. (and if it was a girl in that situation, thats what they would do in a second) but if they say its not in his best interest, why not for a 11 year old, a 10 year old?, a 9, etc all the way to a baby. So they want to resolve the case, but still not admit the truth. So they are doing the very unusual thing and deciding the whole case on what the minor wants. Hoping to dodge a legal bullet.
The judges know that it is 100% wrong to cut the genitals of a 12 year old child, who can express his disagreement.
And they realise full well that if they acknowledge that in their legal judgement, they are opening the flood gates for the eventual abolition of male infant circumcision.
Because, as Perspective says, if it's wrong to cut a 12 year old without his consent, then it's wrong to cut an 11 year old, 10 year old, 9 year old - all the way back to a baby.
Yes - it is blindingly obvious that cutting up a non-consenting infant's genitals is horrendously, heart-breakingly wrong.
But a lot of these judges have probably done it to their own kids. And they all have friends and family who have done it. And of course, there is the issue of the religions that demand that it is done.
No one wants to touch the ethics of it, because when you do, you can't fail to see that American parents are, over and over again, mutilating their children and depriving them of their basic human right to their own body.
So, so sad. (and infuriating).