Summations Only

The adult can make decision where possible.

No, the subject is circumcision of infants and adults.You didn't open the thread; you don't get to determine the subject.

Nearly all of which consist of you simply re-stating, and re-stating, and re-stating your opinion on the matter.What about the question of "Why"?The rest of us have provide justification our opinion as to why circumcision should be banned. But rather than even join a debate about those justification, or provide your own, you seem to be quite content to simply fill up this thread with your, "as simple as that" broken record of letting us all know what you think.Don't it get boring for you?Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

But he can't make a decision that was made for him.That's why the state has to intervene, to protect the rights of that adult from infringement by his parents. You've already agreed that it must.

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.

Read the topic title and show me where the word adult occurs.

No, I am not bored at all.My reasoning is really simple; I believe that the decision should rest with the parents and their doctors.

No, I have not agreed to that.And yes, he cannot make a decision that was already made for him.It may seem unfair but it is reality.

No, infants are not individuals, they are infants.

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.

And you maintain no interest in defending that belief? Only repeating it?

Possibly.My position, one I have presented numerous times throughout this thread, is that infants do not have rights except those established by a State, culture or society.In the case of male infant circumcision I do not believe that the issue is sufficient to create an exception to the concept of the parents having dominion over what happens to the infant.Infant male circumcision, in my opinion, falls in the same category as parents deciding to have a birth or beauty mark removed, of having an excess flap of skin removed, of many minor and very low risk procedures.Yes, when the infant grow up he may well wish that his parents had not had him circumcised, had the birth or beauty mark removed, had the excess flap of skin removed. Fine. He believes that his parents made the wrong decision.I believe that the harm done by State intrusion at that level of detail far out weighs and harm done should the parents and their doctors decide to circumcise an infant.

I believe I have defended that position.

Oh good. If you would please indulge me, which post(s) do you think best defended your opinion? I must have missed it which is not surprising given how fast his thread as moved. Please forgive me and kindly point me in the right direction.

The most recent iteration is just a couple posts up, in Message 357.