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

You have mistaken morality for being completely deontological (act-based) enterprise when it could also said to be consequentialist (consequence-based). Thereby your claim that a discussion of the morality of circumcision must be the former is unjustified and somewhat goes to show your lack of philosophical knowledge-- despite raising Locke in your defence. My argument has been highly relevant: P1 Parents, as the acting autonomy for their children, should make decisions that are in their children's best interests P2 Circumcision is in their children's best interests C Therefore, circumcision should be a decision parents make for their children. To which you have replied, 'no, no, because circumcision is like ISIS and is nothing but mutiliation'. A) the rational parents who choose circumcision for their child are not terrorists and to suggest so is highly offensive and B) it's not mutiliation. The human form is not complete on birth; when our immune system by vaccines or health by some medical procedure is edited by modern science, we do not call this 'mutilation' but 'treatment' (whether preventive or in response to an illness). In regards to your third paragraph. You did argue on the grounds of bodily autonomy (R2) hence it is up for debate. I don't necessarily have to 'address the principle of the act' because morality is not necessarily deontological. An act may be permitted providing its consequences are beneficial. My references to data which you so readily dismiss are evidence of these consequences you have failed to find counter-studies for. 'As stated earlier, my opponent must remain consistent- if he can justify cutting parts of the penis off with these arguments, then they should be equally true of cutting parts off of the vagina.'I ask again...what is your obsession with the female genitals? I don't get it. Firstly, after claiming that I provide no arguments, you say I have justified circumcisions with 'arguments'. Who is being inconsistent? But, then your point gives a false equivalence. Taking a much less serious example, one does not give male vasectomy the same medical status as female tubal ligation. This is because the latter carries much higher risks and negative consequences that the first, a much easier procedure. Because they are completely different reproductive organs, completely different results ensue from treating them. In a doctor's risk assessment, a child male circumcision over clitorectomies would be much less dangerous and carry an entirely different set of consequences. 2. Health Benefits1. Thanks for agreeing with my statement, even if you didn't realise it. 2. That's a highly reductive viewpoint on Judaism and Islam. Just because the orthodox traditional members of those religions do not permit sexual activity before marriage, does not mean that many modern members of those religions in the US aren't sexual active before marriage. And, what's more, the data I presented was a study of Americans, and not just Jews and Muslims. Breast removal? What's you obession with the female..? You must be a teenager. 3. I said 'seek to eradicate', not 'it will eradicate'; reducing the risk of catching a disease, helps eradicte that disease. I by no means said that circumcision is an immediate cure. More than 360 men in five months have contracted penile cancer -- only 360 have died of it within 5 months. I accuse you of the McNamara fallacy here. Just because statistically these deaths are low, does not mean that those 360 lives are inconsequential or in any way meaningless. We should still seek to be preventive. 4. You again haven't given evidence or a rational argument as to why circumcison is not an acceptable way to prevent illnesses. I have provided evidence to why it is. Therefore, I ignore your assertion on the grounds of this evidence. Your argument from rape is moronic. Being raped is not beneficial for either men or women?!? 'That penises and vaginas are different has no bearing on the principle of the act of mutilating them'. Again not accepting your definition of circumcision as mutiliation, yes it does, it means that the act will ensue in completely different consequences and involves a completely different set of risks in medical procedure. These are not arbitrary factors. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------There were more arguments and studies that I wished to debate, but my opponent hasn't raised these issues in his rebuttals or gone beyond my arguments in R1 meaning that I haven't needed to defend myself from them. As such we haven't covered sexual function (which there is evidence for and against), the cultural impact tradition has on identity, the enforcement argument (etc.). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------TheMarketL, your commitment to ethical deontology has meant that you have failed to see the wider issues around the ethics of circumcision. And again, you have not metaphysically defended your deontology: you refused to do so about Locke, and you refused to do so about Corporeal Autonomy. In you had studied Locke, you would know that his moral ethics is highly ambigious since he does not write and book on them and in any case, you also haven't defended the natural rights to life, liberty and property that his political contractarianism seeks to protect. Knowing that you would ignore my arguments 'even if proven empirically' as absolute scientifc fact, just goes to show your fidelity to your beliefs. Reason needs to be justified with naturalistic evidence, not just asserted. Anyone could make up a moral maxim: many less have the sufficient grounds to prove them.I would hardly say you have argued on behalf of Classical Liberalism, citing only one poorly understood passage from Locke's 'Second Treatise'. Locke may in fact argue human rights for children, but he also argues parental rule acting of behalf of that child's interest. To dismiss my argument, is to dismiss one of Locke's positions: am I still the one who is being inconsistent? The tautology of your rebuttals shows your commitment to your position which has made this a fruitless debate. 'None of your round 2 arguments remain intact- I circumcised them, you just fail to realise this.'I thought you were against involuntary circumcision? After reading this debate, I'm still not sure on your evidence or reasoning which has led to this conclusion except that 'religion is evil', 'equality regardless of profound difference', and 'I'm right because I'm right'. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Anyhow, I've enjoyed this both on the comments and debate even if I know that neither of us have our reconciled on any points. --TheUnexaminedL.