The circumcision of a minor without medical neccessity should be banned.

I. OF A SECULAR GOVERNMENT:The definition of secularism is:"indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations." {1}As such, a secular government is one that pays no consideration to religious views in its function. I said that a secular government should not, upon religious considerations, excuse such blatant human rights violations. This is entirely acceptable. II. PARENTAL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS:My opponent claims that a boys parents should decide whether or not to circumcise him because parental rights allow them to make medical decisions for their child. This simply does not apply as circumcision is not a legitimate medical decision- all it is is genital mutilation, plain and simple. Parents do not have the right to cut parts off of their baby just because said baby is incapable of consenting to it. With regards to your claim of 'health benefits,' this is just a rationalisation for a savage act- the Muslims too claim that there are benefits to Female Genital Mutilation, {2} yet we give no consideration to these claims when we declare it a human rights violation. However, let's assume there are benefits to it- there are also scientifically proven benefits to sex, {3} yet you would be arrested for child molestation if you had sex with your child. This is precisely because he/she is incapable of consenting to it- and there are no considerations for their parents right to 'do what they think is beneficial for their child,' because parental rights do not allow for child abuse, and cutting parts of a child's genitals off is child abuse. Case and point- claimed benefits do not justify genital mutilation, and neither do 'parental rights.'III. LOCKEAN LIBERALISM:My opponent appears to be arguing that, because children are not capable of making rational decisions for themselves, they cannot be granted the same right of bodily autonomy as an adult. While this is true, it does not apply to this scenario because we are talking about harming a child and permanently disfiguring him. This applies only to positive actions, for example- a child doesn't have the same right as an adult to own a gun, but he still has the same right as an adult not to be shot with a gun. A person not being able to give informed consent does not mean that you get to consent to permanent disfigurements for them. A drunk person is not capable of making a rational decision- this means they cannot drive a car for example. They are also not capable of giving informed consent to sexual acts, yet this does not allow you to 'consent for them,' because that's legally considered rape. IV. CIRCUMCISION AS 'MORE OF A BENEFIT THAN A HARM:'My opponent states:"The AAP and CDC both agree that the benefits of circumcision outweigh its harms."This is an appeal to authority- and a very faulty one at best. The AAP is a board of doctors who make a ton of money off of circumcisions, {4} the technical term for this is a 'conflict of interests.' Many people may not know this, but back in the 1930's - 1950's, doctors recommended smoking, and claimed that it was not only harmless, but actually healthy- they even released studies to 'prove' this. {5} The reason was because the Tobacco industry was making too much money off of cigarettes, that when health concerns about it arose in the 1930's, they began hiring doctors and researchers to convince the public that it was safe and actually healthy. {6}With regards to the CDC- James McCormick sold Iraq and Afghanistan a useless device called the ADE- 651, claiming that it was a 'bomb detector.' {7} The device was useless, and this has been proven repeatedly, yet the Iraq and Afghanistan Governments still use these devices despite it being proven empirically to be useless. Case and point- just because they haven't admitted it's a scam yet, doesn't mean it isn't, and just because the government says so, doesn't make it true. This too, is an appeal to authority- so let's proceed to refute the claim itself, my opponent claims:"Whilst some children might be negatively affected by the procedure, on whole the reduction of urinary tract infections, STI's, penal cancer, phimosis positively contribute to the well being of circumcised individuals and save hospitals resources later on in treating these aliments. Thereby it could be said a good use of parental agency to protect their children against these problems."1. You would have to circumcise 117 babies to prevent 1 UTI which could be treated with Antibiotics instead. 2. Condoms and monogamy are far better at preventing STI's. 3. Penile cancer is extremely rare in First World nations and virtually impossible for those with good hygiene. 4. Phimosis can be treated with a steroid cream. The prevention of minor health concerns, which are easily preventable or treatable with less invasive options, by a non-therapeutic amputation, cannot be rationally considered a health benefit, or a 'protection.' The clitoris too is subject to a number of minor health concerns that can plague a woman later in her life, {8} yet it is illegal to cut out your daughters clitoris! V. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM:Religious freedom refers to that which an individual decides to do with their own self- as such, Jews and Muslims should not be prohibited from being circumcised, but this does not allow them to inflict it on their children against their will. Your religious freedom stops where your child's human rights begin- me having the right to practise Islam doesn't give me the right to join ISIS and chop your head off because that encroaches on your right to live. Religious Branding is already illegal- I can't tattoo a cross on my babies forehead, so why should a Jew be able to tattoo his religion onto his childs penis?{1}. https://www.merriam-webster.com...{2}. https://islamqa.info...{3}. http://www.webmd.com...{4}. http://knowledgenuts.com...{5}. http://www.nytimes.com...{6}. http://www.healio.com...{7}. http://news.bbc.co.uk...{8}. http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...