Parent-elective circumcision of offspring is ethically unacceptable

Rebuttal:Main Point: Much of pros sources are vague, inconclusive, contradictory, contradicted, & fraudulent:Source 1:I want to point out that the article is not contained in the link, & cannot be read without paying for it.Pro describes the anesthesia as "fraught with serious clinical risks " & "risk their life".Circumcision does not use general anesthesia, but rather local anesthesia which temporarily numbs some of the nerves in a specific area not the body as a whole. Source 2:"My opponent concedes that only 62% of men who choose to be circumcised are satisfied."Strawman. I did not concede anything, I merely pointed out what that particular study which pro brought, concluded. Even according to that study the majority were happy with the procedure.But if you take a look at the very next study (& numerous others) you find:"PURPOSE: Claims of superior sexual sensitivity and satisfaction for uncircumcised males have never been substantiated in a prospective fashion in the medical literature. We performed such a study to investigate these assertions. ...CONCLUSIONS: Circumcision does not appear to have adverse, clinically important effects on male sexual function in sexually active adults who undergo the procedure." (1)In fact if we take a look at Pro's own source/study we find:"PURPOSE: Evidence concerning the effect of circumcision on sexual function is lacking... COLUSIONS: ...Prospective studies are needed to better understand the relationship between circumcision and sexual function." Source 4:This study breaks a fundamental rule in that it use multiple variables, uniform test groups, & bunched several factors together.Perhaps that's why it concluded "These associations need further confirmation. "Source 5:This source too had enough integrity to say: "Thorough examination of these matters in areas where male circumcision is more common is warranted."Source 7:My opponent does not deny that he exaggerated the #s.But there seems to me to be a bigger problem here, that problem is with pros source itself.As far as I can tell, the source that pro quoted simply made up many claims without sourcing, & what was sourced was not found in the supposed study.I asked pro about this in the comment section, I received no answer. source "[9]"I appreciate that Pro has now sited an accessible source for this claim, & I find the source very revealing. "Although not technically difficult, it results in a large number of reported and unreported complications annually.""The fairly high rate (1.5 to 15%) reflects the fact that the procedure is often performed by an inexperienced individual without attention to basic surgical principles."My conclusion from this is that the procedure is not inherently risky, but rather the problem is that "the procedure is often performed by an inexperienced individual without attention to basic surgical principles.""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.""Well, lets quote the actual article, specifically were it gives the stat.:"The potential for complications during circumcision is real and ranges from the insignificant to the tragic. The fairly high rate (1.5 to 15%) reflects the fact that the procedure is often performed by an inexperienced individual without attention to basic surgical principles.3 Bleeding is common and can often be, controlled by pressure...The stat. is not referring to amputations specifically, but rather " complications" in general, Which includes things as minor as Bleeding.But it gets better:" Excision of the penile glans is not common with only 1 previous case of penile excision, with successful repair reported.16"The paper ends off:"Most circumcision injuries, including glans amputation, can be successfully managed with aggressive treatment."Source "[10]Again I scanned all those pages, & did not find circumcision mentioned even once.I asked my opponent in the comment section to point out were it mentions circumcision.He has not replied as of this posting.Source [11]Pro admits that it doesn't say what he quoted, but rather it comes from source 10, As I pointed out source 10 doesn't mention circumcision.My opponent does point out that source 11 says :"Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed." ( emphasis mine)The object of the study was "Whether to recommend the routine circumcision of newborn male infants."Not recommending that it be routinely performed =/= Should not be performed/ it's unethical to perform.The study says that one of the factors taken into account was "is it cost-effective". It being cost effective or not, does not impact it's being "ethically unacceptable".Regarding "physical integrity":This is a typical "If it can't be done with factual arguments rely on some catch phrase that sounds good".As I pointed out before pro based his "physical integrity" argument on unsourced statements.As such I need not respond. I will respond a bit any way:Pro writes:"circumcision cannot be undone"It can & has been done for thousands of years:"Then certain of the people ... built a place of exercise at Jerusalem according to the customs of the heathen: And made themselves uncircumcised...(2)To the present day(3).The idea that pro mentioned:" Indeed, while there are a large number of circumcised men who wish they had never been circumcised (too bad they will never know what they are missing), there are very few uncircumcised men who wish they were circumcised."Is unsourced & in my opinion false. Especially when done in certain cultures/sects for religious reasons, the vast vast majority are happy that it was done, & would be extremely upset if it hadn't.FGM:Pro again brings up FGM, but he doesn't specify which type, as I pointed out in R2 there are several different types. I am not as familiar with FGM as MGM, & thus hesitate to discus it, as it is not really the subject of the debate.I will mention this:"Female circumcision is not required by any religious group and is a traditional practice prevalent in Africa, Southeast Asia and South America.It's far more disfiguring, disabling and potentially dangerous than male circumcision so cannot be viewed in the same light. The original author fully supports the World Health Organisation's policy that this procedure should cease throughout the world."(4)My arguments:1- Moral nihilism - It seems that pro does not understand what moral nihilism is.Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. (5) If nothing is intrinsically moral the resolution "Parent-elective circumcision of offspring is ethically unacceptable" is cannot be true.2- Multiculturalism - " What is ethical is NOT determined by what other cultures think. It is determined by what our culture thinks. "1st of all, what's this, "our culture", our culture is composed of many subcultures, lets say I were Muslim.2nd of all Pro assumes that our culture considers circumcision unethical, but brings no evidence.The fact of the matter is the opposite.(6)I'm running out of space.3 -I've shown that Pro's own statements & sources are far from perfect.They certainly cannot compare to fact that, The American Academy of Paediatrics, looking at multiple studies & factors, concluded that "overall the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks."I'm just about out of letters.(1)http://www.restoringtally.com...(2)Maccabees 1, 13-15 (KJV) c200 BCE(3) http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...(4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...(5) http://en.wikipedia.org...(6) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... - Section2 - "EPIDEMIOLOGY"