Circumcision and religious freedom
Andrew writes, on circumcision:
As readers know, my position is simply that no parent has a right to permanently mutilate a child for no good reason. Scar tissue should be a personal choice. Would we approve of parents’ tattooing infants? The entire thing is an outrage and should be banned outright with a religious exception for Muslims and Jews. [emphasis added]
If Andrew believes that “no parent has a right” to circumcise their infant, why does he allow for the religious exception for Muslims and Jews? Would the same be true for female circumcision? Should we allow the religious African immigrants whose customs include female genital mutilation to continue with that practice – but not everybody else? Where is the boundary to be drawn between the right of the infant and the religious freedoms of the parents? Couldn’t Christians or anyone else for that matter simply claim that it is part of their religious beliefs to have their sons circumcised? In other words, where is the line drawn or should it be drawn in the first place? Can it be drawn?