[–] classy_nigger 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
It can't simply be that the adult dislikes what their parents did to them as a child.
So what can it be? Being able to decide what happens to your childs genitals affords deciding to mutilate them.
The only half-reasonable argument that doesn't involve abolishing rights altogether is divine right: "God" owns every person but allows us the freedom to act as though we own ourselves as long as we abide by his rules which, ironically, might include circumcision. The problem I find with this argument is that you might as well have "government" or "society" as "God"; some third party in a position of power dictates what the "rules" are. I think it is more likely that priests invoke God the way politicians invoke Democracy rather than the existence of a supernatural and benevolent being only communicating with a few select individuals to dictate how we may act with "his" humans. We might as well have a God with no rules at all, if you can find the right priest.
Another argument might stem from the concept of dual-ownership (triple in the case of 2 parents). It must be that "ownership" is not a binary value but some sliding scale. A convenient argument for the oppressed child who is going to have his genitals cut up, or pimped out to pedophiles, but how to even begin forming such an argument in such a way that it does not depend on subjective concepts of divinity, and thus falling to the same problems as argument 1, escapes me.
[–] prairie 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
I had to think about this overnight. How about what would be acceptable to do to the adult if they were incapacitated and needed surgery? Foreskin removal would be acceptable if there were a medical emergency requiring it while the adult were incapacitated, e.g. in a coma, just as it would be for an infant, but not simply because others felt like its removal would be aesthetically pleasing while the adult were in surgery for something unrelated. The latter would result in a huge lawsuit. It would be a planet of fresh air if everyone who talks about valuing children and their rights would support adults suing their parents/doctors for removing their foreskin as infants when there was no medical necessity.
More generally, it's a good position on the matter because if a parent whores out their child, there are lots of other abusive things the parent will be doing as well. Fundamentally if a child has abusive parents, the child will suffer short of total state ownership of children from birth (probably the goal of many).
BTW I appreciate your argument. It's lighting some dark corners of indoctrination in my mind regarding ownership and the state's tentacles.
[–] classy_nigger 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
This is not an objective concept, and it does not speak to the question of "who has the right to dictate what happens to the child's body?". I don't see any reason that a doctor, who might as well decide that transgenderism is necessary, should have more of a right than either the parent or the child. Or, if the parent is deciding what is "medically necessary", then this will not stop them from circumcising their child.
If a parent cannot unilaterally decide to circumcise (or castrate or whatever) then they must not be the (sole) possessor of the child. I'm sure you also do not want to place the child's custody solely with himself either. The answer you are looking for, I think, is that the child has some joint custody of himself with the parent. The most familiar of those arguments is that ownership of the child switches at some age (e.g. 13 a la Bar Mitsvah). That argument has the problem of deferring to God or tradition, and does not preclude circumcision in any case. I am not familiar with any argument that has non-binary values ownership such that a parent cannot circumcise their child, but can stop them from transitioning genders.
An unfinished idea: What if both child and parent can, by right, veto the other's decisions regarding the child's body? They must both will for something for anything to happen, by right. Although that seems easily abusable by any parent, who can essentially coerce the child by vetoing all eating until the child agrees to circumcision, so that the child must decide between death and circumcision.