Parents have a fundamental right to elective circumcision of their offspring

First, I would like to point out that fundamental rights, as used in the debate resolution and as argued for previously by myself, is clearly referencing "that which has some ‘rightness’ logically derived from first principles". If CON wishes to argue a different version of fundamental right, he will not be arguing against my arguments nor the intent of the resolution, but rather a straw man of them. This would, arguably, constitute a violation of the "no sneaky ****erism" rule, and if he continues doing such, ought lead to a 7p win for PRO. Finally, CON has asked me to supply the BOP that is rightly his for various claims he has made; I will not do his job for him. Ethics from first principles: BOP for responsibilty Con has already accepted that the universe exists. Further, as Descartes put it, "I think therefore I am"; it is not sane nor productive to doubt the existence of self, as it is tautologically true. In accepting the existence of the universe, and of self, it becomes accepted that entities such as "self" may have existence as arrangements of stuff in the universe, such that there are possibly other such arrangements with "selfness". Freedom from first principles. If “rightness” equates to “it servers your will”, and “wrongness” similarly means “because it runs counter to your will”, there exists a contradiction in nature and in logic when the interests of two people that presumably exist come into conflict; from this conflict there are two resolutions: First, one might place rightness above the value of wrongness; that if something is right, it can never be wrong. If such a leap is made, though, one quickly realizes that “benefits me” may in fact be an idea that the two actors in this system are in conflict over, particularly if continuing to live benefits person 1 and killing person 1 benefits person 2; here exists a contradiction, and so such a proposal can be rejected as nonsense. Alternatively, one might rather put wrongness as the more powerful of these two, and it is here that we see the contradiction disappear: That if something is wrong for either of the actors, it can never be right, and something only becomes not-wrong if “it does not harm anyone else”. It is clear that this is the correct response, as it is the only of the two resolutions which does not contain a contradiction. As such, it becomes apparent that the second of the above propositions is the basis for what is "freedom", that which is not-wrong, and that which is "harm" which is that which is wrong. Responsibilities from first principles Entities seek that which is of value to self, the widest possible interpretation being the unimpeded freedom to act in the enviornment, and to exist by their own will. But, this requires that if it seeks to defend its freedom from that which would do it harm, since equals ought be treated equally, that entity has a responsibility to also defend the freedom of other such entities from harm, and as such have a responsibility to prevent themselves from doing such harm to others. Fairness from first principles The easiest of the three moral foundations to achieve is that of fairness; merely that any freedom which the self claims must be granted to all others, else it is a contradiction since equals ought be treated equally. CON's burden of proof CON retains a burden of proof that "it is any animal's fundamental right to do whatever they think will lead their offspring to get laid" CON retains a burden of proof that the law requires "more civil behavior of humans" CON retains a burden of proof that "Everybody can kill anybody as a fundamental right" Conclusions The definitions of responsibilities and freedoms from the basis of first principles has been defended, and all original points in my opening post stand.