Religious Special Pleading

Exactly the point of this thread. If you can show me the harm for doing it to an 8 day old child I'd be interested to see it. I'd be fascinated to see that applying pressure with lips and tongue is harmful but applying pressure with a wetwipe is not harmful and slicing bits off is not harmful. That was rather my point, yes. I was questioning why your comment - "What I'm against is the government telling me not to harm myself." was relevant in a discussion about doing things to other people who cannot consent. But as has been established in this very thread, people are talking about this problem. People seek surgery to correct the problem. There are support groups where people talk about this problem. There are legal avenues to sue in some countries because of this problem.That some brothers don't talk to one another about it is not evidence that nobody is talking about it.

I guess when you said this, you actually meant A not B....so let's forget the whole thing and get back to the point. We've already agreed this. It's non-contraversial You tried to say that A should not be able harm B. Circumcision is unecessary harm to a child. If B want a lump of his dick removed, fine, let's wait until he can give his consent eh?

Psychological harm. Granted, my brothers are crazy but not half as crazy as I am, so there doesn't seem to be a correlation. In the case of somebody who can not give consent, "myself' refers to somebody who can. Harming a child is equivalent to harming the parent. Only a very small minority. More people are talking about UFOs but I wouldn't call them a problem. As there should be.But if it is a problem for a minority, that's no reason to ban it for the majority.

No. I meant what I said. Let's try it again: We banned A from owning slave B because it was harmful to B. You're advocating banning B from doing something that you deem harmful to B. It's the difference between harming yourself and harming something else. Thus, the comparison to slavery doesn't work. What part of "consent" do you not understand? Why not wait until he can give consent to education? Why not start kindergarten at age 18?

In this case B is a 7 day old child, so how can B do anything at all? Nothing works if you think Baby B can slice his own dick. I was wondering exactly the same of you. Baby B has not and can not give his consent. You're attempting an equivalence between education and penile mutilation? Really?

Exactly. He requires his parents' consent for any medical procedure. Consent is consent. How do you think they differ in terms of consent?

So, as I said, you entire A and B argument is total bollox, give it up. In the first (circumcision), consent is necessary because it involves only harm and risk. In the second (education) it is unnecessary because it is only beneficial.

No. it was your attempt to compare circumcision to slavery that was bollox. That claim depends on circumcision being harmful. Medical practitioners and lawmakers don't agree with you.

You finally noticed the point of the entire discussion. I have provided the evidence - from medical practitioners - that it is harmful. 200+ deaths per year in the USA alone, directly attributable to circumcision.

I'm not stopping you, please show me. I remain persuaded that your family life is not going to provide us with any insights. Huh? About 10% of circumcised men. It's not that small. It also disproves the concept that 'nobody' is talking about it. The reason is that it's unnecessary, risky, damaging and there's an absence of consent.

There are risks to any form of elective surgery. Medical practitioners and lawmakers do not agree with you that circumcision should be banned.

1. The necessity is a matter of opinion.
2. Everything is risky.
3. Damage is a matter of opinion.
4. Children can not consent.

Yes I know, I've pointed that out several times now. It's an unnecessary risk that adults are exposing 7 day old babies to for superstitious reasons. Many medical and lawmakers do agree with me. Now what?

Non-therapeutic circumcision is, by definition, not medically necessary. Even for those that believe the prophylactic argument, they wouldn't argue it was necessary. A sentiment which has justified precisely nothing, ever. Not really - one has to cause damage in order to complete a circumcision. If you fail to damage the skin, it won't come off. Exactly my point.

It isn't up to you do decide what's unnecessary.And there are doctors doing it for medical reasons, not religious. It isn't banned. You lose.