Summations Only

We should be allowed to tattoo are children too?
How about breast implants for 10 year olds?Either we allow parents to permanently mutilate their children or we don't.
I prefer that we don't.But I guess that's just an atheist's point of view.

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.

Oh dear.Not a man of your word then.

Bluegenes has supplied evidence against circumcision way back in message 174.
No-one has been able to counter it; no-one has even tried.And, noticeably, no-one has supplied any evidence in favour of circumcision.
When Oni's tongue-in-cheek argument about blow-jobs is the best argument put forward; you would expect all those defending circumcision (jar, etc.) to realise that they do not have a leg to stand on.

And that is you avoiding the question.

Well, it doesn't answer the question. That also doesn't answer CrashFrog's question.Here is the question again:
Shouldn't individuals be afforded the personal choice whether to have their penises circumcised?
Try answering the question using the word 'individuals' and not using the word 'infant'.I'm not at all sure how I can make it much clearer.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

So...infants are not individuals?
Are they Borg?CrashFrog must have really hit the nail on the head if you are having such difficulty answering such a simple question.

Hahahahaha!
You are now just saying absolutely anything to avoid answering the question!Let's follow your warped argument for a minute:
Are Pitbulls dogs? No, they are Pitbulls! According to jar, Pitbulls are not dogs!
Are M&M's sweets? No, they are M&M's! According to jar, M&M's are not sweets!Infants are individuals.
Here's the standard definitions of 'individual' - you can see they describe an infant.

quote:

---

A single human considered apart from a society or community.
A human regarded as a unique personality.
A person distinguished from others by a special quality.

---

You have really been handed your butt.
CrashFrog's question has left you spouting nonsense.

So - still no answer.I'll ask again, just in case you ever feel the urge to debate honestly:
Shouldn't individuals be afforded the personal choice of whether to have their penises circumcised or not?{abe}
Actually, don't bother.
You clearly can't answer a simple question.
Asking you to do the impossible just "annoys the pig".Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.