sourmìlk wrote:It's yet to be shown that circumcision may harm a person.
Now I'm just going to assume you're trolling, because the alternative is... well... nevermind. There are numerous anecdotal accounts from people who feel circumcision has harmed them, ergo, it has been shown that circumcision MAY harm a person. For zero benefit.
But to avoid going through an analogy again, would you disagree that parents, by default, have discretion over their child, and that one must show an action is harmful to override that discretion?
I think showing that the action may cause harm, and has zero benefit, is more than enough to override that decision.
In addition, you repeatedly ignore the permanence of the action in question. If you give a kid milk and he's lactose intolerant, you stop giving him milk. If you make a kid play football and he hates it, or you believe he is at risk of harm, you should not force him to continue. For the analogy to actually be comparable, you'd have to get parents to agree that if they wanted to make their kid a milk drinker, he would then continue to drink milk every day wether he was lactose intolerant or not, wether he liked it or not.
Even if you knew the kid wasn't lactose intolerant, and there was simply a very very tiny chance that the kid might not like milk, I very much doubt you would find anyone arguing that that was a morally sensible decision.