i don't know what to say to this.

[Robzombie]

I don't see this working thought. Because anyone can ask for the child to be circumsized for "medical" reasons even if it is really for religious reasons. There is no way to tell.

well...unless you're a doctor you can't declare any medical reason whatsoever...only a doctor can make a medical declaration....Might be easier for me to say as in Canada as far as I've experienced our hospitals are very secular...even the Grey Nuns Hospital where 3 of my 4 children were born...there is really nothing religious pertaining to any of the treatment what-so-ever. No method or opinions or anything based on belief is pushed or even mentioned.

They only asked us if our intentions were to have him him circumsized, to which we said nope, and that was that. What I guess I'm saying here is that our doctors do not make medical decisions based on faith and the medical training in this country is not faith based, so if a law were passed here that said "only circumcisions due to medical reasons" there wouldn't be any sneak arounds so to speak. (but like with everything there would be exceptions im sure as determined individuals will get what they want).

[Solanine]

Reaper this is not religous descrimination as the child is not old enough to choose its own religion therefore no irreversible process should be taken on the grounds that the parents want it done. Especially not when the process comes with risks. The longer after birth you leave it to do such operations the more painful and dangerous it gets so it makes sense the judge would decide against it for a four year old. I'm about to get my tongue tie cut (my tongue can't actually get past my lips as is) and its not great.