... back to the 'medical benefit' rebuttal that's been covered several times; since removal of breast tissue can demonstrably lead to a reduction in the rate of breast cancer in adulthood, should this procedure thus be performed on infants?
It seemed to me that there was too much emphasis on the child having a choice in having his foreskin removed. I am circumcised and as an adult have never seen any obvious benefits or complications from not having a foreskin.
the circumcisions I've seen in person in hospitals didn't seem informed by any desire to mutilate a baby for religious reasons.
Because circumcision is a simple medical procedure the complications seem far removed from possibility.
the idea that parents would act with the best of intentions and circumcision is an extension of that thought process indicates that a community of interest is being fostered.
Rights are accompanied by duties and it is understood that infants cannot fulfill any of the burdens that accompany their assertion of rights, so their position in society is subordinate to their parents unless the community of interest standard is not being fulfilled.
it is understood that, especially in the hands of experienced doctors, the risks are very low.
The science is still out, so the atheist community should take the philosophical stance until better evidence for or against circumcision arises.
At this point it is scientifically established to have neutral effects on the individual and ideally reflects the interest of the parents in a child's well being.
As for voluntary breast tissue removal in infants I know little of the matter
while both are sex organs it seems that the situation would be disanalagous on account of the social role of foreskin being very different from the role of breasts.
Marred breasts for example are more easily perceived in the general public compared to a man's circumcision status.