Primrose Road

You're a twelve year-old boy, your parents have been fighting a custody battle over you for several years, your father has converted to Judaism and has now taken your mother to court because he wants you to be circumcised. While the procedure is not, in most cases, dangerous (though there's always a risk of infection), it is going to be painful, and it's not like you're eight days old and too young to remember the pain. Better still, the American Jewish Congress is adamantly supporting Dad. From The Jewish Daily Forward:

“Are parents only authorized to make decisions that a secular decision-maker would make?” asked Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, which is filing a friend-of-the-court brief in support of James Boldt. “We have to win this case, and win it big, in my view” Stern said. “Our position is that the custodial parent can take into account religious interests in determining what’s in the interest of the child,” Stern added.

The Forward does note that the boy himself has not yet testified; if the thought of circumcision does indeed frighten him, and if he has chosen not to convert, I believe the court's decision should be clear. Of course, if he has chosen to convert, then he has the right to choose circumcision for himself. But what's important in this specific case is what the child chooses, not what the parents choose. No, twelve year olds don't always know what's best for them. But it's rather upsetting that so many Jewish organizations (with the exception of the ADL) are supporting the father here. This isn't about Jewish rights; it's about the right of a child who (probably) doesn't want to have an elective surgery.