Copper Bezel wrote:I'm posting nothing new to this thread in saying it, but insisting on absolutes does no good. If these points, which have been raised, were not addressed to your satisfaction, then you'll need to suss out the specific nuances which haven't been, define them carefully, and argue from there. Otherwise, Izawwlgood is left guessing at which objections you're actually making, so of course his responses aren't going to be satisfactory to you.
I'm not sure there are absolutes, or specific nuances, or anything that needs to be defined carefully; my points are thus.
Circumcision CAN cause numerous negative effects: http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm
Circumcision has no great benefits - remains to be proven, I suppose? I've seen no evidence of this anyway.
Circumcision infringes upon bodily autonomy. - there have been opinions throughout this threat which infer infants have no such thing, in which case sexually abusing infants is ok? I disagree but I suppose that's personal?
Accepting an action which carries no clear benefit, has a potential negative, and infringes on bodily autonomy is a terrible thing.
If you wish to infringe on the bodily autonomy of an infant, I personally require you to show huge benefit with no compromising negative, this isn't the case.
Finally, if you insist that infringing on the bodily autonomy of an infant is ok regardless of given benefit, I conclude that you are also ok with various other forms of infant mutilation/abuse, and I think that is disgusting.
If you're still guessing at which observations I am making, feel free to point out where.