It's a non-issue.
I have no issue with consenting adults getting circumcised for what ever reason they want too. A baby, however, cannot possibly consent to such a thing.
The notion of consent is arbitrary. You could also regard religious cults as primary, then you would need their consent to imposing your personal aesthetics.
Well, a baby cannot consent to anything. The parent's consent is the baby's consent.
Now I'm genuinely curious - I'm not affected, so I can't relate: Circumcision is genital mutilation, sure, but is it really "that" bad? Does it affect quality of life, from child to adult (excluding botched circumcisions)? Based on my understanding, I would rather focus on female genital mutilation in undeveloped parts of the world. In comparison, male circumcision seems to be ... ok. It's fine. Or is it? Please let me know.
(I'm not talking about the ignorance of infant's sense of pain here, that's clearly immoral).
As someone who didn't face circumcision complications until puberty, I'd like to track down the doctor who did it to me and see how he likes having pieces carved off of him.
I'd say that attempting to prohibit this tradition has a net negative impact on the integrity and functioning of society because the harm in question is very minor but the reaction to such an attempt will be major. I'm sure you are trying to twist this into "but then I could anesthetize and then circumcise you", however, in that case I'd retaliate so drastically that it would negatively impact the functioning of society much more than say 100 circumcisions, hypothetically speaking.
Focusing only on empathy often misses the point too as it tends to get politicized, overinflating minor issues as in this case, which will ultimately result in power conflicts, degrading long-term sustenance.
hmmmm.