system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Male circumcision of people too young to consent is immoral and should be banned.

-Female circumcission is already viewed as immoral and is banned. I'm not saying the female circumcission done in 3rd world countries is on the same level as normal male circumcission, I believe it is worse. But its not legal to preform less damaging versions of female circumcision on babies here so for equality and consitency it should be the same for males.
-You don't have the religious freedom to violate others rights. Using religion as a reason to circumcise a baby is frankly idiotic. The rights being violated is the babies right to choose for themselves if they want to be circumcised later, not be permanently changed physically, and their own religious freedom to not comform to a religion saying they need to be circumcised.
-People argue it reduces the risk of STDs. You know what would completely elimimate that risk? Cutting the entire penis off, but that doesn't justify doing that.
-People should have the right to choose for themselves when it comes to something permante. Parents don't have the right to change something about their child that can't be changed when the child is an adult even if the parent believes its better for their child.
-There are many men who wish they weren't circumcised, but unfortunately they had no choice in the matter. Its debatable what age people should legally be allowed to get circumcissed but I think 16 is a good mimimum age. And the parent should have nothing to do with that decision.
-In most developed countries most men aren't circumcised. In fact, a bill in Iceland is trying to ban it.
-I doubt circumcission would be legal if it wasn't for the religious tradition of it.
-I do believe in exceptions for specific medical reasons other than "its less likely to get STDs"
-It reduces sexual pleasure

I'm open to hearing other sides to this issue because there may be some important medical studies I'm not aware of. Or maybe theres another convincing arguement.
gpt
Everything, absolutey everything, done to babies is done without their consent and most things have some shade of gray as to if it is a net-good for the baby over the entirety of their life or a net-negative. 

Parents may choose not to eat meat, with efforts to get the required nutrients from other sources because they believe the water-resource intensity issues and morality concerns are more likely to cause problems for the child in life than a lack of eating meat. But some people may disagree. Either way, the child did not consent to that choice but their brains development, growth, and future opportunities may be dependent on it. 

Parents may choose to keep their baby inside all the time, supplementing vitamin D, to ensure the kid does not get exposed to the sun and increase the risk of skin cancer.  Others may believe that experiencing the outdoors is a net positive and outweighs the risk, but sun-exposure over life is cumulative and the child is being impacted by that choice of their parents, they did not consent. 

Parents may choose to teach their baby a specific language. Others may argue a different language is a net-positive for the child given the direction and status of the world. Ie don’t teach your child your native language, teach English. Either way, once the choice is made the child is affected for life. Sure, they can attempt to learn a different language later in life, but their brain has different abilities and capabilities. Once that decision is made to the infant, it affects them for life. 

In this case, assuming the parents considered the potential benefits and risks - even if you disagree with their conclusion - and chose what they thought was best for the child over the entirety of their life, the child’s ability to consent is not any any more relevant than the child’s consent for being vegetarian or a shut-in. 

There are extremes and situations where society deems there is irrefutable evidence that an action is a net-negative on a child (shaking a baby to get them to stop crying, sexual actions) that we absolutey and rightly ban it. That’s based on the nearly universally-agreed understanding that it is a net-negative. It’s not about whether or not the child could consent to the choice.  

Every decision a parent makes for their child does not have their babies consent. 

Circumcision decisions have complexity and parents choosing to do so are not making that choice selfishly or maliciously.