While I am all for voluntary circumcision, when intactivists talk about informed consent they just mean to restrict the individual’s rights to choose to be circumcised.
As the law in most developed countries is today, if a teenager wants to get circumcised he has the option to convince his parents to sign the paperwork (and possibly pay for it).
In the UK, I believe once you are over 16 you can sign the papers yourself. (Is this correct?)
Yet intactivists want to restrict circumcision to 18 years or older (I hope not 21 like buying beer in the US).
That is not empowering the individual, but taking away existing options.
It gets worse if they start to impose circumcision ban even on medically justified cases. Most conditions that can be treated by circumcision do have alternative surgical treatments – which are in fact used in countries where circumcision is considered to be culturally unacceptable, such is in Northern Europe.
So, can a person be forced to undergo a different surgery just because he is not yet 18 years old, even if he wants to choose circumcision?
This is a somewhat rhetorical questions, since all answers are wrong.
If he is forced to undergo a different procedure because of a circumcision ban that is just cruel.
If not then there is the question if people would be forced to fake a medical condition just to be allowed to get a circumcision if they wanted to.
As I said I am all for allowing the individual to choose if he wants to get circumcised or not. But he should have the right to get himself circumcised if he wants it.
