> A baby, however, cannot possibly consent to such a thing.

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).

What matters the most is the cohesion, functioning and productivity of society, which is unaffected by circumcision.

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.

That mindset could be used to justify all sorts of barbarism. The beginning of humanity's downfall was when we invented "society"

Actual barbarism would impair the functioning and productivity of society. The harm in this case is so negligible that it does not matter.

Smashing one in a hundred babies to death with a frying pan wouldn't impair the functioning or productivity of society either. Seems like a pretty poor way to measure barbarism to me.