Summations Only

And we'll keep going through it until your side is prepared to respond to rebuttals. Yes. The responsibility. The responsibility to make choices in the child's interest. Not in their opinion of the child's interest, but objectively in the child's actual best interest. And when parents fail that responsibility by considering amputating a completely functional part of their child, society must step in to protect the child's interest.But in any case, how is it the child's interest when a parent says "my practice of my own religion says I have to circumcise my son"? There's nothing in the child's interest in that - that's circumcision as a procedure done purely in the parent's interest. When Buz says that he had his sons circumcised because Jews do it, and therefore there must be a good reason - because Jews, I guess, are so crafty they must know something we don't - where is that an advocacy for the child's interest at all? Power of attorney is granted so that one can advocate on another's behalf. When someone abuses power of attorney to make decisions that are not in the grantee's interest, power of attorney can be taken away.

There's an implied consent for the doctor to do what is in the child's best interest, not to amputate perfectly functional body parts. And what if the doctor, operating on "implied consent to circumcise", botched it and amputated the entire penis? Does "implied consent" extend to sex-change surgery, which, as you'll recall, you don't think actually makes a man into a woman? What, exactly, should be the fate of the poor infant whose botched, needless circumcision leaves him without a penis?

Read them in the context of Ringo's arguments, and you'll find out. Why is reading arguments in context something you have a hard time doing?

Sure. Your position is neutrality on the subject, where people should make their own decisions about it.Unless, of course, it's your penis being circumcised; in that case, you don't get to make your own decision about it. That's your position, correct? That everybody gets to make their "individual choice" about circumcision unless you're the person who's actually going to get one?My position, which actually is the position of individual choice, is that individual penis-havers should be allowed to make their own individual choice about whether their penis is circumcised, and that it's therefore in the interest of the state to step in and make sure that nobody makes that choice for them, at a time in their life when they're unable to articulate their own choice in the matter.The harm of circumcision is, to some degree, irrelevant; state interdiction (if you'll pardon the pun) in the process is justified simply by the fact that it is practically irreversible and done to infants without their consent. The harm merely justifies why an adult person might very reasonably not wish to be circumcised; since adult men may reasonably not wish to be circumcised, the state should protect their individual choice in the matter.Seems pretty simple to me. Of course, it's about penises, so I can see why you would be so desperate not to even have this conversation.

There's no such thing as the right to make that choice for someone else.And keep in mind, the stated justification usually isn't the parent making that choice for their child, but the parent making that choice for himself: "my practice of religion requires that I circumcise my son." By definition that's a selfish choice - not a choice made on behalf of the child.

Sorry but that simply seems silly.We are not talking about anything comparable to taking people to death camps.I am also not keeping quiet since it seems that I have so far made the second highest number of posts in this thread.Please note that like several other posters in this thread you are resorting to quote mining, taking parts of a sentence out of context.The complete sentence was "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."

Again, you are simply misrepresenting what was said.In Message 274 you said:

quote:

---

Despite your efforts, yes, we actually are discussing those, and other instances (such as male circumcision) where parents permanently disfigure their children.

---

I replied to that assertion. You do note that you used the term "disfigure"?Whether or not a circumcised penis is disfigured or enhanced is a matter of personal interpretation.

I've not ever made such a misrepresentation. This is your usual false accusation to deflect from your losing arguments. So you agree, then, that someone whose penis was circumcised without his consent might very well "interpret" that as a disfigurement. And given that's the case, shouldn't individuals be afforded the personal choice whether to have their penises circumcised? And given that its one of the purposes of society to intervene when others seek to appropriate choices that aren't theirs to make - that's the principle behind why I can't make your medical decisions, for instance - shouldn't the state intervene to make sure that individuals are free to make their own choices about their own penises?It's the inescapable conclusion from what you've just admitted. Of course, you being jar, you'll twist and bob and weave just as hard as you can to avoid it. I predict the inevitable accusation that I "misunderstood" something a couple of pages back that somehow completely invalidates my argument and proves yours.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

No, I do not think that an infant should decide whether or not he should be circumcised.Sorry, but that happens to be my opinion.

And that is you avoiding the question.

Sorry but I do not see how my reply is avoiding the question.When it comes to male infant circumcision I believe the decision should be made by the parents of the infant and their doctors.I'm not at all sure how I can make it much clearer.

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.

But an adult should get to decide, yes? About his own penis, I mean.

No, because the subject is infant male circumcision.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

But, again, there's an additional adult in the picture whose rights you've not accounted for - the adult to whom the penis belongs.