Summations Only

But you won't be able to explain the difference, will you?

Sorry but actually, no it is not defending the practice.You are saying that the State should make the decision.I am saying that the parents of the infant and their doctor should make the decision.

I'm saying that the owner of a penis should be the one to decide whether or not it is circumcised. You have been vigorously defending the "right" of other people to inflict circumcisions on babies.Defending a right is the same as defending the practice. You wouldn't defend the right if you didn't find the practice defensible, would you? You clearly do not, like anyone sane, defend the right of parents to do absolutely anything to their children.So, do you now agree with me that you have been defending circumcision (specifically, the circumcision of babies)?

The difference is between supporting an action and supporting people's right to perform the action.It's the difference between supporting gay marriage and encouraging everyone to be gay.It's the difference between supporting socialized health care and not wanting people to pay for care out of their own pockets if they choose.It's the difference between supporting a parent's right to circumcise their child if they want and arguing that parents everywhere should start circumcising their male children.And if you can't see that difference, I am sorry; but I guess that is your problem. And I think everyone in this thread has made it clear enough where they stand.If you are having a hard time figuring that out, so be it.Jon

No, I do not agree that I am in anyway defending circumcision.I am saying that in my opinion the decision about a male infants circumcision, like many other relatively trivial decisions, should decided by the infants parents and their doctors.It really is that simple.

Where's the verb "to defend", Jonboy?Wrong, of course. Defending a practice is not the same as encouraging everyone to do it. No-one has suggested that Jar is arguing that everyone should circumcise their male children, and you know it.So, try again. What's the essential difference between defending someone's right to a practice and defending that practice?

Of course you're defending it. You wouldn't defend the parents and doctors right to do it if you thought it was an indefensible action, like, say, buggering the child.Something being "defensible" doesn't mean you think it's a great idea.That's why I picked you up on it when you said you weren't defending circumcision earlier on, when you clearly have been throughout the thread.

It does not matter how many times you repeat a falsehood, it does not make it true.No, I do not agree that I am in anyway defending circumcision.I am saying that in my opinion the decision about a male infants circumcision, like many other relatively trivial decisions, should decided by the infants parents and their doctors.It really is that simple.

So do you agree with me that infant circumcision is indefensible?

No.I do not believe that I have said that it is defensible or indefensible.I have said that it is not my place to make such a judgement; rather that is a decision that should be made by the parents of the male infant and their doctor.

Therefore we can carry on advocating the banning of circumcisions without further objections from you?
Good.Oh...unless you want to defend circumcisions? Do you?
No?Ok. Good.
Circumcisions should be banned.You aren't going to change your mind and start arguing that parents should be allowed to circumcise their children are you?
Because that would go against circumcision being banned.
That would mean you were defending circumcision.
And we all know that you "do not agree that I am in anyway defending circumcision."No, no. You wouldn't do anything to defend circumcision.
You are true to your word.
You would surely not do anything that would in anyway defend circumcision.In summary: you would not defend circumcision if someone was to demand them being made illegal.
Excellent.
Phew.
At least we got that all cleared up.

I am defending the right of the parents and their doctors to make any decision regarding circumcising a male infant instead of allowing YOU to make that decision.It really is that simple.

Oh dear.Not a man of your word then.

I'm not defending circumcision. I am defending a parent's right to choose circumcision for their child.I am not arguing about circumcision. I am arguing about the right to circumcise.

jar reiterates: Have you ever heard of the expression, "Silence is a form of consent"?By remaining aloof in the manner you state above, you are consenting to allow it (someone other than the owner of the penis to choose to do the procedure) to happen.If you'll pardon another use of hyperbole, you know the bit about "when they came for the Jews, I did nothing...when they came for the Gypsies, I did nothing...."?