Parents should not be allowed to circumcise their male infants

Thank you. My opponent said that once the procedure of circumcision is completed, it is irreversible, and even though a child doesn't remember it, he is "stuck with the consequences for life." May I ask, which consequences? We are talking about a little piece of skin that is removed. I would hardly say there are any significant negative consequences from foreskin removal, even if a person regrets it. In point of fact, I come from the Balkans where circumcision is normal, and I have never heard of one single person who has ever regretted being circumcised. I have not even heard of people from anywhere else around the world having regret the fact that they've been circumcised. I don't know where my opponent gets her "fact" that "Many men who were circumcised as infants grow up to feel a sense of incompleteness and loss at having been mutilated at such a young age." Moving on, my opponent said that circumcision can decrease the sexual pleasure of a man. When I heard of this argument before, I thought that it could be a valid and important point. However, through some thought about it, I can easily say that this is, in fact, a weak claim. Why is that? See, I am arguing for infant circumcision in this debate. There are a few points to be made: (1) It might be that adults who get circumcised lose their sexual pleasure, but we cannot know whether or not that is the case for infants. (2) When a child gets circumcised, he cannot possibly know of a better sexual pleasure when he grows up, even though he is circumcised, because he never had anything better. The child loses nothing. He cannot feel bad about losing sexual pleasure if he hasn't experienced anything better. My opponent comes with a parallel case where a child's finger is removed. This is a bad comparison. There are no health benefits from removing a person's finger. I would like my opponent to name one. Moreover, a circumcised person has no fewer abilities than a non-circumcised person. Those who get their finger removed get no health benefits, they might feel a bit embarrassed, they might be teased, they might not be able to do things which other people can do, and I can continue for a while. My opponent claims that removing a body art goes against the child's will. This is, of course, a horrible argument. What kind of an act is accepted by an infant, or other children? Do parents ask their baby whether it wants milk or coke? Not at all. A parent has the right to make decisions for his/her child, even if we speak about circumcision. Let me ask, what if a child shows early signs of e.g., pectus carinatum?[1] This chest deformity is not too dangerous (except if it is a symptom to Marfan's Syndrome), and a person can live with it without correcting it. However, he might have difficulties breathing, he might be ridiculed by peers, and he might have low self-esteem. Should a parent have right to call for surgery on his child who might suffer from this deformity? Yes. Now, the child might be against it in the future because he feels bad about having had a surgery - however, that does not take away the right of his parents to correct his deformity in the first place. If they feel that it will be easier for them to cope with the child both socially and economically by correcting his deformity at an early age, then they have the right to do so, even though the child might be against it when he grows up. My opponent mentions that some studies found circumcision to prevent HIV by reducing the risk of infection as much as 55-65%. This is true. Other studies have shown even a few percents more. Then my opponent moves on to mention that condoms work better than circumcision. This is poor logic. First of all, not everyone uses condoms. There are good reasons why STD's are pretty common in the Western world. http://www.avert.org... Parents should be able to call for circumcision on their children if they want their children to be safer in the future. Moreover, circumcision does not only reduce the risk of HIV infection. "The trials also found that male circumcision decreased herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) acquisition by 28% to 34% and the prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) by 32% to 35% in men. Among female partners of circumcised men, bacterial vaginosis was reduced by 40% and Trichomonas vaginalis infection was reduced by 48%, the study authors write." http://www.medscape.com... There are many health benefits. If you read the article, you will see that renowned health organizations recommended circumcision. In fact, these health benefits are not replaced by proper cleaning of the male genitalia, as my opponent suggests. To conclude, circumcision comes with many health benefits, and it does not prevent a person from functioning normally. There are no mental or physical consequences which are detrimental to one's health if circumcision is performed at an early age. Parents have to take care of their children, and making sure that they are safe even if their children forget to use condoms during sex, is something which gives parents right to circumcise their male children. Also, the sources my opponent cited are fairly biased. Cirp.org cites outdated and unsupported scientific data. http://www.cirp.org... even mentions Sigmund Freud, who had little knowledge of circumcision. -- Reference(s) -- [1] http://www.nlm.nih.gov...