Libertarian intactivists claim that male circumcision is an act of aggression because it is a violent procedure with severe medical risks but no medical benefits performed on the body of an infant/child without informed consent of the relevant infant/child.
I disagree with the libertarian intactivisits. Why? Let us start at the beginning. First, the guardian of an infant male has the duty/obligation to make decisions, medical or otherwise, about the body of the infant male because the infant male cannot make such decisions for himself. Thus, informed consent of the infant male is not required. Second, the guardian of the infant child can only justly consent to an invasive procedure on an infant child's body if the intent of the procedure is to treat or prevent a medical illness. If the intent of the proposed procedure is not to treat or prevent a medical illness (such as tattoos, ear piercing, or aesthetic plastic surgery), the guardian's consent for the procedure is invalid and, if performed, the procedure is an act of aggression. Third, MC has been shown in clinical trials to lower the risk of acquiring sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as genital herpes/HIV/high-risk strains of HPV, penile cancer, and infant urinary tract infections (UTIs) AND lower the risk of transmitting HIV/HPV/bacterial vaginosis/trichomoniasis to female sexual partners. In addition, clinical studies show that female sexual partners of circumcised men have a decreased risk of developing cervical cancer. Fourth and finally, the rate of adverse events for MC of infants is 0.5%, of children is 9%, and of adults is 5%. Therefore, the safest time to perform MC is when the person is an infant.
The preceding paragraph debunks the primary assertions of the libertarian intactivists.
And I am not wrong about this.