I believe that we can arrive further at a common ground if we discuss the issue of routine circumcision in a more fundamental way.
so far, we have mainly been debating the logical soundness of each others arguments. Not the logical validity. they are two different things.
before an argument can be said to be logically sound, it must first be logically valid.
an argument can be logically valid, but not logically sound.
1. All French people live in mud huts
2. Jean-Pierre is a French person
3. therefore Jean-Pierre lives in a mud hut
This IS a logically valid argument, because the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion.
i.e, IF we accept the premises, then we MUST also accept the conclusion.
the problem is that it is not logically sound. the premise - that all french people live in mud huts, is not true.
An argument cannot be logically sound, without being logically valid. It makes little sense therefore to debate the soundness of an argument, before addressing its validity.
I dont think i have ever seen a logically VALID argument in favor of routine circumcision. So here is your chance to offer one.
here is my logically valid argument against it
1. Amputation of healthy body parts of unconsenting children is never justified.
2. Routine Circumcision IS Amputation of healthy body parts of unconsenting children
3. Therefore routine circumcision is not justified
when we present argument like this, it is easier to see exactly where we disagree with each other, and we are less likely to get sidetracked, or confused. we can debate each specific point, knowing its relevance and significance to the argument.
Pro circers for example could identify my first premise as one they reject. They may say that amputation of healthy body parts CAN sometimes/always be justified.
however i have yet to see a logically valid argument for routine circumcision, that does not also allow all sorts of other body part modifications, such as female circumcision and tattooing.
anyway, is anyone brave enough to attempt it?