Comment: religious circumcision of infants is a violation of rights

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: This will be (see in situ)

religious circumcision of infants is a violation of rights

Not all Jews circumcise their sons and a male does not have to be circumcised in order to be Jewish. The Torah contains 613 rules and regulations, most of which are no longer observed by modern Jews. Circumcision can be relegated to the bronze age, along with child stoning and animal sacrifice.
Furthermore, the circumcision commanded in the Torah (one version of the Torah contains no such commandment) is not the modern practice. Periah Metzizah is not mandated in the Torah. The original circumcision of the Jews was removal of the acroposthion.
Another point to remember is that many Jews who practice circumcision today are not even observant Jews. Many are atheists. So they are not even performing circumcision for truly religious reasons, but for cultural ones.
Circumcision is an assault upon the person and the psyche. A baby should not be considered as property of its parents (or the State) but as an individual in its own right. That boy may grow up to reject the religion of its parents and be an atheist who wants to keep all of his body-parts. He may become a Sikh and be opposed to all body mutilations. Judaism and Islam are themselves opposed to body mutilations except circumcision. So go figure.
His penis. His choice. Your rights end where my rights begin.