Circumcision is grievous bodily harm, German judges rule

[Sirveri]

160. So what you're saying is that it's not actually necessary to be forced upon the child.

After all, they can get it done as an adult. The covenant certainly has more meaning if you actually have to affirm it yourself rather than having it forced on you before an age you can remember.

This of course totally ignores that children aren't property to do whatever the parent desires with, which is why female circumcision is banned. And since you opened that door, the largest Muslim country on earth routinely performs it (for religious and cultural reasons), accounting for over half the incident of FGC, and they typically only either slit the hood or remove it, leaving the clitoris intact. But that practice is banned in this country without any religious exemption. Despite calls from health care professionals to legalize the more minor variants to prevent immigrants from sub-saharan Africa from returning there to have a much more extreme variant performed when they could be convinced to have a less invasive procedure performed.

So I guess the point is, where are the limits of parental domination. Do they have the right to force cosmetic surgery on another person? The issue is cloudy because parents can give consent, but they're also supposed to act in the minors best interests. Is it in the child's best interest to obliterate their ability to make their own decisions? In the case of girls, they're protected from the slightest nick with the only exception being medical NEED. It's really not too much to ask parents to only have surgery performed on their children if they have a viable medical need.