Summations Only

Just throwing out a couple of links for the debate:Infant’s Death Renews Debate Over Ritual Circumcision - The New York Timesdavidwilton.com is coming soonI always try to respect religious beliefs and practices, but when an aspect of religious practice can (and does) kill a baby, for no purpose which protects others from death in greater numbers, then the practice is (to state it at its mildest) extremely hard to justify.

As a society, we have collectively reached a position where we justify the use of a car, for any number of situations where we need to travel some distance, because the overall benefit and convenience of car use is deemed to be worth the inherent risks. We look at that risk, and assess whether we feel the benefits justify the risks. We have decided that they do.I think that a similar assessment should be made in relation to circumcision.To be honest, I am not yet entirely sure where my own assessment of the risk lies. Until I looked into this a little, and realised the risks of infant death, circumcision didn't bother me. However, I am revisiting that view, in light of the deaths.

No more or less so than a trip to the bowling alley, or to visit relatives. In all cases, we have determined as a society that the benefits of driving are worth the risk.It does not follow from society having come to that collective view in relation to driving, that all risks are worth taking, in light of their respective potential benefits. You have to make the case for the specific benefits of circumcision against the risks, not simply refer to another activity, with a different risk/benefit analysis. If you can back that up with some pertinent data, then please do so. The links I gave suggest that infant death is a rare, yet real consequence of some circumcisions. It is possible that every one of those deaths is as a result of improper procedure, but (a) there was nothing in the links to suggest that this was the case; and (b) even if it were, in an imperfect world, improper procedures will occur, and so the risk/benefit analysis should still be undertaken. Once again, you have to perform a risk/benefit analysis for each activity - you cannot state that because one risky activity is justified, all risky activities must be justified. That is a false equivalency, and a fallacy.Let me give you an example - taking our child for a ride in the car to visit church/the bowling alley/grandma is something we see as an acceptable risk, in view of the benefits. Holding the child over a precipice, so someone can take a pic on their iPhone for giggles is something we see as bad, because the benefits aren't worth the risk to the child. Somewhere on that spectrum lies circumcision - what's your considered view as to the balance of risks and benefit, when it comes to circumcision ?

I'll come back on the rest of your post in a while, when I have time, but just to address this one: Might I suggest that you actually read what I said ? I said "It is possible that every one of those deaths is as a result of improper procedure, but (a) there was nothing in the links to suggest that this was the case".Do you see the bit where I said "every one of those deaths". That means all of them. Not just one, not just several, but all of them. The link which you haven't read yet refers to the author's opinion that there are in excess of 100 infant deaths each year in the United States, attributable to circumcision.Now, when I say "It is possible that every one of those deaths is as a result of improper procedure, but (a) there was nothing in the links to suggest that this was the case" (in response, by the way, to your unsupported statement that death from proper procedure is impossible), it does not follow that I am lying if you point to one death out of over 100 which was not due to proper procedure.