Religious Special Pleading

Circumcision is not limited to religious practice. Most males in the United States were circumcised by the hospital after birth.

First of all, I disagree that the state has a right to superced the decisions of parents, given that the decisions fall within a reasonable standard. This was one courts opinion on the matter...in a case involving adoptions:

quote:

---

The court's function has traditionally involved the balancing of sometimes
competing purposes: the protection of family integrity and the protection
of children. On the one hand, limiting the state's freedom to intervene
coercively in family relations reflects a societal value placed on family autonomy
and preservation of family relations. This value underlies a historical
understanding that freedom of choice in family matters warrants a significant
degree of constitutional protection. Deference to the family is based on
an acknowledgment of the complexity and variety of human relationships.
Standards of parenting vary greatly, and parents generally are given liberty
to make decisions about how best to raise, educate, and nurture their children,
even when such decisions run counter to widely-held societal norms.

​

Accompanying this concern for family autonomy, however, is the state's
interest as parens patriae in ensuring the safety and well-being of children
unable to care for themselves. When a parent's care falls beneath minimally
adequate standards or jeopardizes the well being of the child, deference to
the family must yield to the state's interest in protecting its most vulnerable
citizens.3 Thus, when necessary, "the state has a wide range of power for
limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child's welfare."4

​

Stated broadly, in the exercise of its child protection function, the
state's goal is initially not to ensure the best possible end for the child, but
rather to ensure that the child's basic needs are met by the parent.' In implementing this goal, courts face substantial pressure to compel conformance
with societal standards of parenting.

---

The issue is to what end the state should have the power to override the parents. And in general, I don't think that the state should be able to meddle to any large degree.

Nor, I would argue, is it up to the state except in rare cases. The focus of our debate here is whether circumcision is, in fact, one of those rare cases where the state should have the power to override family decisions. Yes there is. the reason is that the state should not normally be given such power.

If so, I can picture you looking like this:

And Tangles basic argument, I think, is that social consensus should usually over ride individual or parental rights if for the defined best interests of the child. ...though I think he also would love to see religion and archaic religious practices banned using the same criteria. In other words, the argument is basically whether the decisions regarding the child are best left up to the parent or to society-at-large?Tangle has gleefully noted in the past that archaic religious beliefs are on their way out in society and he would love to see the circumcised children protected as well.

This whole weird idea of a rational science-based utopia is not gonna happen on my watch. The level of harm needs to rise higher than the supposed harm of circumcision before we will allow the law to step in.

The bottom line is whether or not you believe that society itself should override parental consent and authority. I say that in most cases it should not.