Religious Special Pleading

No it isn't. Circumcision is unnecessary surgery which carries with it a risk of direct harm. Using transport is a necessary part of modern life. Of course we do, female circumcision is banned.

Right, you and your brothers do not use any kind of transport...I think not. You're sqirming. Exactly. So should a man. So we're agreed, let them choose when they're of an age to be able to.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

You attempted a contrived, fake and restricted argument - I didn't fall for it, tough. Transport by motorbike, bus, train, taxi, bicycle, foot, plane, tram, horse - whatever, carries a risk. But not using it is impossible. Self-evidently it is not. Circumcision is unnecessary surgery which carries with it a risk of direct harm. Using transport is a necessary part of modern life. Not if they're 7 days old. Which is the core of the argument. Their parents harm them. They need to be stopped. Just like we do for female circumcision.If you're just going to repeat stuff, from here you're talking to yourself. If you have any facts or evidence instead of this circular waffle, feel free to provide them.

I dunno, maybe for the reason I've said a dozen times now? You know, the one that says an unnecessary, risky and harmful procedure should only done with the consent of the person undergoing the procedure. Harming children is wrong. It's not too hard to understand.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

You mean the other question that been asked and answered a dozen times?
If an operation is medically necessary, of course there's no problem with consent. The operation is in the best interest of the baby.If an operation is not necessary for medical reasons and also carries risk and direct harm, there's no rational reason why it should be allowed until the person is able to consent to it.But you know all this, so I'm going to stop feeding you for a while.

We've done this. We've done this.

We've done that too.Your debating technique is to bore people to death with repetition but provide no fact or evidence. So be it.

ie, you have no facts and are forced to admit that I have.And if the facts are that babies are dying because of an unnecessary operation, rational people decide against the operation. Individuals do not have a right to harm others.

I've no idea what happens in the US but here in the UK...

quote:

---

Not many NHS trusts fund circumcision for non-medical reasons, because the risks outweigh the potential health benefits. However, sometimes religious or cultural male circumcision is offered on the NHS, as it is safer than the circumcision being carried out elsewhere.

​

In Scotland, it's recognised that circumcision in a safe, sterile environment, by a skilled surgeon, is better than the risks associated with unsafe, unregulated ritual practices.

---

Circumcision in baby boys - BabyCentre UK

So was bear baiting, knuckle fighting, slavery, racial discrimination, homosexual imprisonment, speeding, drunk driving, smoking in public, urinating in the street, corporal punishment.....need I go on?

You're making my point - progressive societies ban things that are proven to be harmful and unban or regulate/licence things that are not or that have been proven to be harmful when prohibited. We change things that are wrong as our knowledge grows about them.We currently allow some harmful things for financial/historical reasons but these are often under pressure from increasing regulatory restrictions, taxation and publicity campaigns. Examples would be smoking, alcohol, guns. Sugar will soon join them.When we know things are harmful but can't or don't want to prohibit them, we make them available only to adults who are capable of making informed decisions.Would we allow a new religious organisation to cut the penis's of baby boys? Of course we wouldn't, we'd lock them up for GBH or child abuse.

You have been shown evidence that at least 200 children die as a direct result of circumcision every year in the US alone. You have not challenged this evidence. You are therefore arguing disingenuously. At a minimum. Minor harms like, say, death. Agreed. Necessary medical procedures need to be agreed by parents. There would be no precedent. It would simply be a crime.

Of course I can. 200 unnecessary deaths is harmful. 200 unnecessary deaths. (Which is an underestimate as circumcision is not usualy what is written on the death certificate.) It's never necessary, by definition.Would we allow this practice to start to today if we'd never done it?

Yes I can. 200 unnecessay deaths. Unnecessary. Yes, that's the problem. They're harming children for irrational, non-medical reasons. Let's try that again. If it had never been done before and today a religion decided to cut mutilate boy's penises for non-medical reasons would we allow it?

Enough.