re: #212 Buck

Again I want to get back to the subject. I think that a defence of circumcision is that it has been practised by my people for 4000 years.

How long something has been done is not a defense of it.

For example, people have been persecuting gay people for thousands of years. Doesn’t make it right.

You think that a better defence is parents are allowed to force their children into playing american football (which you think is more damaging than circumcision ) they should be able to do this. Especially you say, since circumcision is a net health benefit.

Yes, it is much better, because it doesn’t rely on something arbitrary, like tradition.

We allow kids to have their bodies put at risk for various reasons, including cultural ones, when the kids have little say in it. Circumcision provides a net health benefit.

Why do you feel that’s not a good defense of circumcision?