The practice of circumcising babies should be discontinued

TheLwerd doesn't answer any of my studies and drops all my evidence from urological experts on the functions that the foreskin has. Don't let her make new responses in her last round. She chose to offer a bunch of bogus studies instead of refuting my case properly – don't punish me for it, since I can't respond to anything she says in her last round. TheLwerd seems to cite a lot of sources in the previous round but they all link back in some way to one pro-circumcision propagandist – Brian Morris. She essentially cites every pro-circumcision study on his site, then says "etc" as if there are thousands more (which there aren't). Seriously, go to his site: http://www.circinfo.net.... He has a bunch of cheesy flyers on circumcision that he wants people to hand out; a real scientist wouldn't want to appear so biased because everyone knows the dangers in the scientific method of drawing foregone conclusions (leading people to cherry pick their data and ignore other explanations for their data sets). This is the reason Morris has to publish his paper online, instead of in a peer-reviewed journal, where it would be torn apart. ==Rebuttal== Freedom of religion My opponent is trying to make this debate about something that I clearly didn't want it to be about, since parents are not forced to do anything. This is bad conduct since I made it clear in both R1 and R2 that I didn't want to argue freedom of religion. But if I must respond: 1. People selectively choose what practices to follow. Jews no longer own slaves, for example, even though this is in the Bible. [1] 2. It should still be the child's choice. If a cult required you to cut off your right hand to join, I think we'd all agree that parents shouldn't make this decision for children at birth. Foreskin has just as many valid functions as a hand. People should also get to choose their religion – not be forced irreparably into one. 3. This contradicts one of my opponent's later arguments – that circumcisions should always be performed by a licensed professional, not a rabbi. The Jewish religion requires circumcisions be performed by a rabbi (a mohel), who often has questionable surgical skills. [2] Positive health benefits The first study theLwerd cites on UTI's and STD's, done by Morris, foonotes a paper written by Wiswell. It uses the same data as the Wiswell study, which I'll refute later. General refutation to all the STD studies 1. Whether someone gets an STD is heavily dependent on how much sex someone has. Inclusion of large numbers of religious Muslims and Jews in the data set for circumcisions skews all the results, since these groups are much more likely to abstain from pre-marital sex, and thus have zero chance of contracting an STD. 2. The same invalidates all the studies about women, whose partners are more likely to wait until marriage, and who are more likely to wait themselves (Muslims usually marry other Muslims). 3. The herpes statistics prove how illegitimate these studies are. Herpes is usually transferred from skin-to-skin contact of the thighs. There's no valid reason why foreskin would increase its transmission rate, but there are valid reasons why people who have less sex would be less likely to contract herpes. 4. There's no valid explanation for why foreskin increases STD risk by a large magnitude. There is, however, an explanation for why it decreases the risk. The source I already cited (from urological experts) explains that the foreskin secretes antibodies and lysozymes that kill bacteria and viruses. The source says that Howe (1999), Laumann (1997), Nicoll (1997), Smith (1987), Cook (1993), and Tanne (1998) all find that intact men are less likely to contract STD's than circumcised men. 5. This also relates to the cervical cancer rate, since cervical cancer is often caused by STD's, such as HPV. General refutation to UTI Around the world, UTI's in women are more common than in men and are treated non-surgically. [3] Basic medical doctrine is to treat infections with the least invasive option (antibiotics). Foreskin hardening, cancer of the foreskin, etc The medical need for foreskin removal in intact males is 6 in 100,000. [4] Such a rarity hardly necessitates circumcising everyone as infants. Breast cancer rates are much higher – should all girls get mastectomies at birth? Response to all medical justifications If the medical benefits are so clear, why doesn't a single national pediatrics organization recommend routine infant circumcision? Wiswell study 1. The American Academy of Pediatrics looked at his study and concluded that it was "methodologically flawed." [5] 2. The study looks at U.S. Army hospitals around the world. It was routine practice in these hospitals to circumcise all babies, unless they were pre-mature and had to be catheterized or unless they showed urinary tract deformities. [6] Only sickly babies were left intact, skewing the results. Lwerd footnote 9 The study looks at boys born in the 1980's, before doctors knew much about foreskin. The foreskin was often forcibly retracted by doctors, which can cause serious complications. We now know that you're not supposed to forcibly retract the foreskin. 2A. My sources clearly prove that circumcision is far more painful and traumatic than vaccination. TheLwerd drops the Goldman evidence that most circumcisions in the U.S. are administered without anesthetics, which is barbaric. We treat animals better. 2C. Post-op studies TheLwerd's footnote 13 This evidence is fabricated – maybe Morris mis-cites Calnan and theLwerd is not guilty of this. The real Calnan (1978) study noted a decrease in circumcision and tonsillectomy rates over time because doctors no longer believed in the medical necessity of either procedure. [7] Extend the study that 90% of babies show significant changes in behavior post-circumcision – exhibiting anti-social behavior and lack of trust in others. Goldman's research proves that many of these changes last into adulthood (my #8). 3. Complications One of L's studies is Wiswell, and the other cherry picks its data from one NY hospital. She drops my Journal of Urology evidence that the national rate of botched circumcision is 1.5%. The hospitals L cites all have experienced doctors perform the circumcisions; most hospitals have inexperienced interns perform circumcisions because it is seen as an "easy" procedure. [8] 4. Cleanliness This study refutes itself. The intact men admitted to bathing less often and less thoroughly. Note also, that you get bad breath if you don't regularly clean your tongue. Should we cut off all babies' tongues? 5. Useless foreskin? TheLwerd drops ALL my arguments here. Extend the evidence from urologists that the foreskin heightens sexual pleasure, protects against infection, and causes women less discomfort during sex than a circumcised penis. Extend my evidence from the Journal of Sex Research that "men circumcised as adults regret the change." 6. Female genital mutilation The point is that destroying an intact female is as bad as destroying an intact male. 7. Choice There are no risks to adults of circumcision that are greater than for babies. One of the "risks" Morris cites in L's source is that adults cannot easily be persuaded by the "evidence," so we should force kids to get circumcised. All the other risks assume the Morris/Wiswell studies are correct. Extend the evidence that 35% of circumcised adults wish they had been left intact. Parents can make a major decision, like vaccination, if there is overwhelming medical evidence in its favor. The evidence for circumcision is mixed at best, and strongly against the practice, at worst. The International Convention on the Rights of the Child establishes it as a basic human right to make major decisions that affect your own body. Vote Pro. Citations: see comments section