Parents should not be allowed to circumcise their male infants

I wish to point out that I apologize for the forfeit, which came because I had 11 minutes to post my argument when my Internet connection got cut, all of sudden. I was pretty ill those days, hence the postpone, too. I thank my opponent for allowing me to come with slightly new arguments even in the last round. I think my new arguments are mostly parallel opposites of my opponent's arguments, so they stand side by side and people can judge which ones are most sound. -- Arguments -- First, I will start by saying that I wrote my statement to be a bit unclear it seems. What I meant was that I have personally not met any people who regret having been circumcised, which is why I stated that I am from the Balkans, and I've never heard of anyone regretting having been circumcised. I have met people from various areas in the world, and I never heard of any who are saddened by the fact that they got circumcised. Naturally, there are people who do regret having been circumcised, but many have also regret the fact that their parents didn't let them take alcohol when their peeps did. Regret does not equivocate negativity. "The foreskin contains many nerve endings, including specialized ones that may not occur elsewhere." There are tons of things which can affect sexual pleasure. Circumcision might affect it on *some* people, but not all. Sex is also more psychological than physical; one cannot enjoy it solely because his foreskin helps him do so. If he has a mental breakdown, he'll hardly enjoy sex. Removing the foreskin, again, can take away pleasure for some people, and it can have no effect - regarding pleasure - on other people. There is a difference of opinion regarding this issue. "The recent study from the US and Kenya published in the British Journal of Urology found that there was no difference in sexual sensations between circumcised and uncircumcised men." http://health.infoniac.com... The same site mentions studies which prove that circumcision does cut down some sensations. Moreover, a site says, "Adult circumcision affects a guy's sexual performance -- but not in a bad way, according to a new study. Circumcised men take longer to reach ejaculation, which can be viewed as 'an advantage, rather than a complication,' writes lead researcher Temucin Senkul, a urologist with GATA Haydarpasa Training Hospital in Istanbul, Turkey. His paper appears in the current issue of the journal Adult Urology." http://men.webmd.com... "30% of male population suffers from PE." http://cureprematureejaculation.net... Premature Ejaculation is a common "disorder" which affects a significant percentage of the world population. It means that men who have sex get an early ejaculation, or orgasm, and that can lead to several problems with his spouse, who doesn't get satisfied when he does. This problem is widespread and is well-known for affecting couples negatively. Therefore, there is good in the fact that circumcision makes men last longer in bed. My opponent said that a person will be aware that he is "missing something" later in life. Being aware of of the fact that you're circumcised cannot make you aware of the fact that you are experiencing a worse sexual pleasure in the sense that you *know* how to differentiate between sexual pleasure before circumcision and after circumcision. A person who was circumcised as an infant *cannot* know the difference personally - he can only be *aware* that there is a difference, but he can't feel it. "Next, Mirza claims that my pinky finger analogy fails because removing a finger has no health benefits and because someone missing a foreskin is just as functional as someone who is not." Yes, the analogy is horrific because removing the finger brings no benefits ever, while removing the foreskin has numerous health benefits. Just because the majority of the health benefits come in teenage years doesn't mean that circumcision is the same as removing a finger. So, how can finger removal be synonymous to circumcision in terms of benefits? Finger removal can (1) make someone feel bad about himself, (2) make his life a bit harsher, because it can distort the looks, and looks are important to people when it comes to e.g., romance. Do you know that we even cut a person's abilities by removing a finger? E.g., a person can't really be a hand model without a finger. Even though the chances that someone wants to become a hand model are actually small, it remains a fact that we still cut the opportunities in life for someone by removing their finger. However, that is *not* the case with circumcision. Whatever bad it might bring, the positives outweigh the negatives without doubt. That's why the analogy is bad. "And depending on what country the child lives in, he is just as likely to be teased for being circumcised as he is for missing a pinky finger" I wonder what kind of a country that would be. Circumcision is extremely widespread. Arab countries find in normal, African countries don't mind it (and Arab countries are part of Africa), a great part of Asians are circumcised, hereby in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, North America has circumcision as a norm, and so on. It's not true that you are just as likely to get teased. Even if that were the case, I already explained why circumcision is still different to finger removal. Next, my opponent mentions immediate safety as one of the reasons for allowing parents to do something to their children. Safety is safety, whether short-term or long-term. Parents care as much about my safety right now as they do in 10 years, and now that I'm still considered a child, they have every right to be part of my decision-making which involves my safety. Now, I will elaborate on why circumcision is a right that a parent has to make use of upon his male children. My opponent presumes that when a child is "old enough" to have sex, he will get circumcised if he wishes to. Readers, how is this a valid argument? Had people actually paid attention to safety when they were having sex for the first time, how would statistics actually look? Would unintended pregnancy still be an issue, perhaps? Would STD's still be an issue? Not the least. However, we have both -- and why? That is *because* people aren't careful enough. No matter how old one is, mistakes happen. Now, a child is a child, and his parent will have to deal with many of his own mistakes, *especially* if such a mistake involves having STD's transmitted. However, a circumcised child will have far lesser chances of getting infected than a non-circumcised child. Why should a parent not have the right to circumcise their child in order to make sure that even if their child has unprotected sex, he minimizes his risk of being infected? Take a look at this: http://www.sexualityandu.ca... Can you see the median age of first intercourse? We consider the age of 16 being childhood. A person makes many mistakes during his childhood, and who can tell a parent that he isn't allowed to let his son have a piece of unnecessary skin removed so that far better results can come off of that? We have STD's being spread in USA, and imagine if people weren't circumcised as much as they are over there - things would be worse. That's why circumcision is being recommended as a medical procedure by various world health organizations. Please look: http://www.sciencedaily.com... Are these statistics not shocking? Yes they are. Why should we prevent parents from making their kids safer only due to near-useless skin, whereof the results are increased sexual pleasure, decreased risk of infection, etc.? The argument that boys can't actually regret the procedure doesn't hold water. The parents also can't regret it if their child gets infected with HIV because they never circumcised him. Thanks.