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

Getting straight to the rebuttals:1. Secular Government I was not disputing your definition of 'secular', but arguing how being of a secular government doesn't necessitate that the government defend your civil liberties. Human rights are built after secular foundations; they are not intrinsic to secular governments in themselves. Therefore you have to demonstrate that a secular government ought normatively to be interventionist in defending the civil liberty in question: bodily autonomy. Since you have not done this, my argument from R2 carries. 2. Parental Rights Again, your argument goes unjustified and is, as you say, 'plain and simple'. Your use of language with words like 'savage' instantly suggest that religious doctrines are of low stature, a highly offensive notion for the religious, which by no means proves your claim. Technically, non-therapeutic circumcision it is a medical decision. Non-therapeutic circumcision is carried out in US hospitals and doctors who are ethically against it can choose not to perform the practice. This is just ignorance of reality on your behalf. Vaccinations-- how savage: sticking a spear into someone's arm. It can inoculate people against disease? Who cares? This is just a rationalisation of barbarism...... You cannot dismiss the data I presented under this line of reasoning. We are not talking about Female Genital Mutilation, which carries a whole different set of medical consequences, hence this is irrelevant in the terms of our debate. Your argument about sex improves the health of the post-pubescent practicing it: not the children themselves. Non-therapeutic circumcision benefits the child. Under the Parental Responsibility Act of 2000, a parent has to act in the best interests of the child. If it protects them from harmful diseases, circumcision thereby is in their best interests. You've again not answered my point, so my argument remains. https://www.ontario.ca...3. John Locke You haven't proved the statement that circumcision is 'about harming a child and permanently disfiguring him'. I do not dispute the permanent bit, only the harm and disfigurement of circumcision. Your examples of consent are completely unrelated and therefore useless. I dismiss your response to my argument as again completely irrelevant and what's worse, a misrepresentation of Locke's position.4. Appeals to Authority Appeals to authority are not necessarily a fallacy; appealing to experts is logical. While the AAP is suspect to a conflict of interest, they actually have a manifesto against it outlining their obligations and measures to avoid it occurring: https://www.aap.org...Anakin Skywalker of the Jedi killed a group of Padawans as the end of Episode III; therefore, all Jedi are guilty of infanticide? This does not follow. James McCormick does not represent the whole of the CDC and even if he did, his offense is unrelated to circumcision. 1. Not if the STI cannot be treated by antibiotics due to its nature. Prevention is better that treatment, both financially and for the patient. 2. Irrelevant. This doesn't mean that circumcision doesn't help reduce the risk of STIs. 3. There have been 360 deaths from penile cancer in 2017 alone (5 months). Shouldn't we seek to eradicate this disease? https://www.cancer.org...4. Again irrelevant. Other treatments do not negate the benefit of circumcision. For example: don't prevent obesity, if someone gets obese they can just have liposuction surgery. This is clearly wrong. What's your obsession with the female genitals? Can't you keep the debate relevant to the males ones? This only suggests that you cannot find sufficient arguments against my points so thereby must argue about something else entirely. The female genitals are entirely different from the male ones. Therefore, in debating the medical consequences of editing them, completely different answers will ensue. 5. Religious Freedom Again, not my point. I was arguing it against the US Constitution that circumcision be made illegal. This was really a yes or no answer, that I was hoping to progress the debate by. Again hyperbolic and irrelevant. Circumcision is not murder. Religious self-autonomy fails on the grounds that a parent acts as their child's surrogate autonomy over all areas of their lives. Adult circumcision loses much of the medical benefit and will likely be a more complicated and painful procedure. Not all circumcisions are religious as I pointed out, thereby attacks on religion do not attack the practice of circumcision as a whole. I only need to defend some non-therapeutic circumcision to be successful. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------From R2, you've missed out most of my points, been guilty of irrelevancy and straw man arguments, and have only asserted rhetoric instead of proving anything. On these grounds, all my points in R2 remain intact. Thank you for an easy response.