Consent for Circumcision?

Holm Putzke says that boys should be allowed to decide when they're sixteen:

Aside from these practical and medical considerations, ethical arguments alone would strongly suggest that medically unnecessary operations should be delayed until a patient is capable of deciding whether to have a part of his genitals cut off. This is the bedrock principle of informed consent, and lawmakers or judges would need to decide the age at which a boy is capable of this decision. Perhaps 16 is a logical age. It would be a straightforward law: “Circumcisions not based on a medical indication are unlawful without prior informed consent. Such consent is valid only after completion of the 16th year of a person’s life.”

Personally, I've never thought very highly of genital mutilation, and view it more as a hangover from times of more ardent religious superstition. Anyone engaging in the debate about the matter should be prepared to immediately surrender the idea that the mutilation of the genitals of children is in any way a medical concern. We know perfectly well that — far from the Old Testament belief that it was the best practice hygienically — there are no verifiable medical advantages. But, of course, there are the risks of the procedure itself: this religious custom, unlike most, isn't nearly as benign and silly as it appears.

When one considers it in purely theological terms, mandatory circumcision makes very little sense. Apparently God's perfect design comes with parts that need to be removed, like a tag on a new cardigan. The absurd incongruity of these two preachings — perfect design, but apparently not so perfect — provides further illustration of the man-made nature of religious doctrine. Perhaps we ought ought to take it less than seriously.

The Times is running the debate in their online op-ed section.