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

My opponent states:"More than ethics, I would contend that this a legal issue: ought the secular government impose litigation making circumcision illegal in the USA? Should they impose an ethical law across America, regardless of whether or not they can or will enforce it?"A secular government is merely a government which is not theocratic- it assumes no God or religion is true. So the question then is, should a government which does not recognize the authority or existence of any God or religion, preserve the liberties of their citizens, even if that means contradicting religious belief? Based upon the definition of a 'secular government,' I contend that it should. Religious or personal belief is not an excuse for harming others, and a government should not permit the infringement of a persons liberties by another, on account of that the aggressor believes it is acceptable. If someone steals from or murders another, they undoubtedly have some excuse in their mind as to why it was OK- and yet this has no bearing in a court of law. If I get tried for burglary, the court will not acquit me on account of that my religion permits theft. But to move on to the resolution, with regards to the issue overall, the Burden of Proof would be on my opponent to justify the practise he is engaging in, but with regards to this debate, the BOP is on me to prove that circumcision is unethical in such a way that it should be banned. Following Classical Liberalism as stated in the resolution, the sole legitimate function of government is to preserve our liberties. Among those are Life, Liberty, Property, and Bodily Autonomy- and all of them are Negative Rights, things that no one should harm you in or engage in aggression against. This is all on account of reason and consistency. To explain, see John Locke's Second Treatise on Government, {1} in it, he states:"A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection..."The like natural inducement hath brought men to know that it is no less their duty, to love others than themselves; for seeing those things which are equal, must needs all have one measure; if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man’s hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire, which is undoubtedly in other men, being of one and the same nature?" The argument in essence is that every human, being part of the same species, should be equal to every other. If this is so, it is inconsistent to say that one should exercise authority over another, or that one should have more rights than the other. If this is so, it is a logical contradiction for one person to engage in aggression against another, or harm their person or property- because that person considers it acceptable to do that to another, but not for another to do it to him. Such aggressions, therefore, are founded upon a contradiction and an arbitrary distinction, and are therefore illegitimate. I more accept autonomy as the basis of these Natural Rights, but regardless, consistency is a way to back up this principle and defeat opposing arguments. To apply this to the subject of our debate, my opponent would not be OK with me strapping him down and cutting parts of his genitals off- or any other part of his body. For the sake of consistency and reason, my opponent must therefore oppose Male Genital Mutilation. Suppose I was a Muslim, and my religion told me to maim "infidels," as per Qur'an 5:33, would my opponent then be OK with me cutting off his hands or feet? I'll bet, the answer is still no. Enable for him to be consistent, he must either be perfectly fine with Muslims breaking into his house, cutting off his hands, and crucifying him, or he must oppose Male Genital Mutilation. Children are people too- though they are not capable of caring for themselves, and parents therefore are left in charge of them- this is not a justification for child abuse, let alone maiming. As Milton Friedman said, 'children are responsible individuals in embryo. They have ultimate rights of their own and are not the mere play-things of their parents.' {1}. Chapter 2:http://oll.libertyfund.org...