Religious/Ethical Circumcision is Male Genital Mutilation

Firstly, my argument about female cancers is a rebute of your argument that circumcision can prevent cancers in women (round one argument). Why would circumcising/not circumcising a man affect the body of the women he has sexual relations with? Secondly, the part(s) of the penis removed during circumcision do serve a purpose, just as a female's breasts (which, by the way, aren't removed even if the woman is incapable of reproducing- they're just left alone). Con is failing to recognise that the foreskin is not the only thing that may be removed during circumcision. Up to five different areas can be amputated. This has been linked to infertility as men who've been circumcised can have difficulty ejaculating, thus preventing conception. Con also fails to recognise that circumcision, no matter the age of the male performed on, can go very, very wrong. In one case, it even lead to the suicide of a man called David Reimer. David and his twin were both scheduled for circumcision as infants due to a tightening of the skin of the penis (often misdiagnosed in babies). David's surgery went horribly wrong and he was rushed out of the theatre. Horrified, Reimer's parents stopped his twin's surgery from going ahead in fear that he, too, would be just as severely mutilated. David's genitalia turned black and rotted away entirely as a result of the botched surgery. Confused of what else to do, David's parents allowed him to undergo gender reassignment. They raised him as a girl, but he was put through further surgery to reconstruct his body. Eventually, Reimer's parents told him about the failed circumcision. He'd often odd as a little girl so decided to live as a male, rejecting female hormone treatments. However, these series of horrific decisions made by surgeons and medical proffessionals proved fatal. He committed suicide in 2004. There are many more cases of males being horrified that they were circumcised without being giving the option themselves. This is not the only case of death and emotional trauma circumcision has been linked to, as you can read in the first source. Source also argues that baby boys have a slightly higher risk of death through blood loss as the loss of just over 2 ounces of blood can be enough to kill a newborn. Con makes an argument that circumcision can prevent STDs, but they disregard that so can proper hygeine of the genitals. Why put males through the risk of blood loss and/or emotional trauma, when they can simply learn how to correctly clean themselves? Again, I am not against circumcision full-stop. I just think that it shouldn't be done at birth- a man should make the decision to be circumcised or not in later life. If he's prepared to take that risk, that is completely ethical, but that choice should be his alone. My source also points out the double-standard of circumcision- why is it okay to circumcise a boy but not a girl? FGM is seen as hoorrific but, in the long run, it has less an effect on the individual's ability to reproduce. Women do not need to climax to get pregnant, but men must in order to impregnate. This just shows the sexist double-standard that circumcised males face. Source: http://intaction.org...