Parent-elective circumcision of offspring is ethically unacceptable

I'll start with my sources. Source 1 The article discusses both physiological changes and behavioral changes during, and immediately following, circumcision. It was noted therein that there were changes in sleep patterns and mother-child interactions for up to 24 hours following the procedure. The abstract indeed does not mention this but the article itself does. Furthermore, my opponent misrepresents the conclusion of the study: "It is our recommendation that an anesthetic should be administered to newborns prior to undergoing circumcision." In other words, circumcision is so overwhelmingly painful and traumatic for newborns that an anesthetic (itself fraught with serious clinical risks when administered to newborns) is recommended prior to the procedure. It is a lose-lose situation as newborns who undergo circumcision must experience overwhelming pain or risk their life with with an anesthetic. Source 2 My opponent concedes that only 62% of men who choose to be circumcised are satisfied. This means approximately 40% of people who are circumcised are having serious sexual problems as a result of circumcision. It is unethical to potentially deprive one's child of a healthy sex life when the probability that the procedure will do so is 40%. Source 3 What my opponent fails to mention is that circumcision results in decreased pleasure in 48% of respondents, and increased masturbatory difficulty in 63% of respondents. The study concludes: "There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men." Source 4 The study concluded premature ejaculation was associated with circumcision. Source 5 My opponent's argument can be turned around: circumcision in Denmark is viewed unfavorably because studies show that circumcision leads to an unfulfilled sex life. Source 7 So what my opponent is saying is that studies have confirmed that circumcision causes excessive bleeding at least 1% of the time and up to 9% of the time. My opponent also concedes that circumcision causes meatitis 20% of the time and coronal adhesions 30% of the time, as well as all the other complications I listed. Source 9 1.5% to 15% of circumcisions result in a complete penile amputation. To prove the numbers are correct, here is a direct link to the article: http://www.cirp.org... The article is titled: "Newborn penile glans amputation during circumcision and successful reattachment." My opponent is therefore wrong when he says the link says "complications" and not "penile glans amputation." The study was conducted in Marin General Hospital (San Raphael, California) by the University of California School of Medicine. Source 10 This study is about the effects of painful and traumatic experiences early in life. It describes circumcision in particular as an overwhelmingly painful experience that has serious long-term neurobehavioral effects. Specifically, circumcision leads to increased anxiety, altered pain sensitivity, stress disorders, hyperactivity/attention deficit disorder, which all ultimately lead to impaired social skills and patterns of self-destructive behavior. The abstract of the article does not mention circumcision but the article itself certainly does. I realize now that I should have provided links directly to the articles in question. Here is a link for my opponent and readers: http://www.cirp.org... Source 11 What I said this study says is actually said by Source 10. I made a mistake in my sourcing. Apologies. What this study does say, however, is relevant. It concludes: "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed." -- My opponent did not rebut the argument I made regarding physical integrity and choice. As readers may recall, I argued that parent-elective circumcision is unethical because it infringes on a child's right to physical integrity. My opponent has effectively conceded this argument. -- I did not understand my opponent's response to the issue of female circumcision. If parent-elective female circumcision is unethical, then why is parent-elective male circumcision ethical? Is this not a form of gender discrimination that protects the physical integrity of girls but not boys? -- I'll address my opponent's arguments now. 1. Moral Nihilism is a meta-ethical position that has no bearing on this debate. This position holds that morality is socially constructed. I don't see how it changes the fact that circumcision is unacceptable, especially given the dominant paradigm in our medical ethics of not doing harm (the Hippocratic Oath). 2. The argument from multiculturalism is both fallacious and lacking in impact on this debate. We do not think cannibalism or murder is ethical even though other cultures say it is. What is ethical is NOT determined by what other cultures think. It is determined by what our culture thinks. Circumcision should still be the child's choice, regardless of what any particular culture thinks. 3. If the medical benefits outweigh the risks, why doesn't a single major medical organization recommend universal infant circumcision? The answer is because the medical benefits are not clear at all. -- STDs are transmitted by having sex. The inclusion of large numbers of religious Muslims and Jews in the data set skews all the results. This is because these groups are less likely to have pre-marital sex and therefore have no chance of contracting an STD. Furthermore, studies show that the antibodies and lysozymes secreted by foreskin help kill viruses. Ronald Goldman claims that uncircumcised men are less likely to contract STDs than circumcised men. Finally, none of the studies cited mention condoms even though condoms are much more effective (99%) than circumcision, less invasive, less costly, and they protect women from infection. If a condom is better than circumcision, why circumcise? -- The overwhelming majority of males who are uncircumcised will not get any of the infections or diseases circumcision supposedly prevents. Therefore, circumcision would not give them any health benefit. The point here is that there is no reason to recommend anyone get a circumcision. -- The AAP report is flawed: 1. It conflicts with positions from organizations in other countries that recommend against circumcision. 2. It inflates benefits. For example, it says circumcision prevents penile cancer even though the numbers show that it would require 322,000 circumcisions to prevent one case of penile cancer. 3. The effects of the pain from circumcision, including long-term changes in infant behavior, are not discussed. 4. The medical risks of circumcision are not mentioned, even though circumcision has many risks including, in rare cases, death. 5. The report attempts to shift responsibility to the parents. If the procedure is done for medical reasons, the decision should be left to physicians, not parents. The medical decision about whether or not to operate is made by the person doing the procedure. 6. The report states: "The pediatrician's responsibilities to his or her patient exist independent of parental desires or proxy consent." 7. The report is influenced by personal, cultural, financial, and professional conflicts of interest. These factors include committee members' circumcision status and religious background. -- The foreskin protects the penile head, enhances sexual pleasure, and facilitates intercourse. It violates medical ethics to cut off a natural, healthy, functioning body part. It is not acceptable for parents to surgically remove their infant's hand. Therefore, it is not acceptable for parents to surgically remove their infant's foreskin. I am out of space. In the next round, I will discuss the following article: http://www.cirp.org... It shows that circumcision violates all the principles of medical ethics.