And I think that's why the judges won't touch the ethical questions raised here. Because if they do, they have to admit that it's morally wrong to cut up a protesting 12 year old boy (female 'circumcision' in Africa, anyone?).
And once you admit that ethically, the boy himself is the person who should decide whether or not his penis gets cut up, that points out that - hey, whatever the age, the boy in question will eventually have an opinion about whether or not he wants to be cut - so he's the one who should make that decision for himself.
What I was trying to say is that this case, when you actually start thinking it through to its logical conclusion, makes it obvious that the 'parental choice' line is crap, ethically speaking.
Which is, again, why the judges won't touch the ethics of what that father is trying to do. :