Circumcision should not be performed on Babies.

Thank you.My opponent has argued that it is wrong to violate bodily inregrity, and since circumcision does so, circumcision should not be performed.We can summarize his argument:P1: Nobody should violate another person's body without their permissionP2: Circumcision violates another person's body without his permissionC: Circumcision should not be performedIf this is incorrect, I ask my opponent to please clarify, since I don't want to be straw-manning his argument.This is a logically valid argument. If the premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily.Now, my opponent hasn't given any reasons to believe premise 1. Many people would disagree. I don't happen to be an ethical anti-realist, and in my opinion this would sortof be a low blow.So I'll attack the second premise.Violate means,"to abuse or show disrespect for something usually by damaging it" [1]To begin with, let's ask ourselves: What reasons have we been given to believe circumcision violates another person's body?My opponent's argument seems to be mainly..."There are men who feel that their circumcision was a violation of their body and through a quick google search you can read whole forums dedicated to men who were circumcised as babies by will of their parents for religious, aesthetic or supposed "hygenic" reasons. They had no choice in the matter and seek to restore their foreskin. foreskinrestorations.net is a great example of such a forum. with over 19,000 users they have threads ranging anywhere from circumcision rates, restoration methods, celebrity intactivists to dealing with partners."But this is fallacious.First, it's an appeal to emotion.Secondly, it's an appeal to large amounts of people.During the time of slavery, many people thought that it was acceptable to have slaves. They were emotional about it too, considering they went to war over it.So by my opponent's reasoning, when a large amount of people feel very strongly about something, does that mean it's true?Not at all.I'm sure there are many many people who feel strongly about circumcision being a good thing. Does this mean it's true?Not at all.It simply doesn't prove anything.A lie is still a lie, even if everyone believes it. The truth is still the truth even if no one believes it.So my opponent has not shown the second premise to be true at all.But there are good reasons to believe it is false.Remember the definition of violate? It says to violate is "to abuse or show disrespect for something usually by damaging it".However, circumcision isn't an abuse or disrespect for a baby's body.Rather it is medically beneficial."After adjustment for confounding factors in the population-based studies, the relative risk for HIV infection was 44% lower in circumcised men. The strongest association was seen in men at high risk, such as patients at STD clinics, for whom the adjusted relative risk was 71% lower for circumcised men. " [2]"The one large prospective cohort study in this group showed a significant protective effect: The odds of infection were 42% lower for circumcised men. The remaining 19 studies were conducted in populations at high risk. These studies found a consistent, substantial protective effect, which increased with adjustment for confounding. Each of the four cohort studies included in the review demonstrated a protective effect, and two were statistically significant." [3]"In these studies, men who had been randomly assigned to the circumcision group had a 60% (South Africa), 53% (Kenya), and 51% (Uganda) lower incidence of HIV infection compared with men assigned to the wait-list group to be circumcised at the end of the study." [4][5][6]So we've seen absolutely no good reasons to believe that circumcision is a violation of a person's body, and we've seen many good reasons to believe it isn't. It's actually beneficial to the person.Of course though, sometimes children grow up and don't like the fact that their parents helped them. Maybe they don't like the fact that their parents sent them to a certain school against their permission.But that doesn't mean it's a violation of their mind or body.Thank you==Sources==[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]Weiss HA, Quigley MA, Hayes RJ. Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS. 2000 Oct 20;14(15):2361-70.[3]Gray RH, Kiwanuka N, Quinn TC, et al. Male circumcision and HIV acquisition and transmission: cohort studies in Rakai, Uganda. AIDS. 2000 Oct 20;14(15):2371-81.[4]Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, Sobngwi-Tambekou J, Sitta R, Puren A. Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 Trial. PLoS Med. 2005 Nov;2(11):e298. Erratum in: PLoS Med. 2006 May;3(5):e298.[5]Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2007 Feb 24;369(9562):643-56.[6]Gray RH, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial. Lancet 2007;369:657-666