got this from Carolyn at one of paralegal groups. I think that a 12-year old boy should be the FIRST one to consult if they are going to chop a chunk off.
"Putting aside your personal views on whether babies should be circumcised as birth, what do you think of a 12 year old child being forced to undergo a
circumcision because his father has changed religions? The father is up
front about the fact that there is no medical necessity for it. Should a
surgery without medical indications be within the rights of a custodial
parent to have forcibly performed without the input of (or despite it) either
the child or the non-custodial parent?
------------------
An Oregon father (an attorney), who is either in the process of converting
to Judaism or has already done so, wants his 12-year-old son (whom he has
custody of) circumcised against the natural mother’s express wishes. She
says the boy doesn't want it done and is afraid to talk to his father about
it. The case went to the Oregon Supreme Court after losses at both the
trial level and an intermediate appellate court. Judges affirmed without
opinion or testimony that a non-medical circumcision of a 12-year-old is
‘within the discretion of a custodial parent.’ On April 18 an organization
called "Doctors Opposing Circumcision" filed an amicus curiae brief in
support of the mother. Although the child is a Russian Orthodox Christian,
the American Jewish Congress, Anti-Defamation League, and other Jewish
organizations have taken an interest in the case and have filed an amicus
curiae brief in support of the father.
On June 19 the Oregon Supreme Court decided to hear the mother's appeal and set oral arguments for November 6, 2007 at 11:15am."
News article about the case:
http://www.forward.com/articles/11410/