The practice of circumcising babies should be discontinued

Thanks, Pro. Pro begins by mentioning that the U.S. is the only country that circumcises mostly for non-religious reasons. In accepting this debate one of my intended defenses would be upholding one's right to religious freedom. Because circumcision is overall considered a safe procedure [1], I would argue that parents should continue to seek circumcisions to exercise their first amendment rights. Indeed religious male circumcision is considered a commandment from God in Judaism [2]. Therefore, to a believer that is every reason to not only have this option as a right but to exercise that right. == Rebuttal == 1. Health Benefits Pro says there are no real medical benefits to circumcision. On the contrary, it has been proven that circumcision protects against wide variety of infections, adverse medical conditions and potentially fatal diseases, as well as protects the partner of the circumcised individual [3]. Examples include protection against UTIs, HIV, HPV, herpes, chancroid, syphilis, penile cancer, etc. It's also been suggested to protect against prostate cancer, phimosis, paraphimosis, thrush, and inflammatory skin conditions such as balanitis and balanoposthitis. In women circumcision of the male partner provides substantial protection from cervical cancer, herpes, bacterial vaginosis, Chlamydia (that can cause pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, and ectopic pregnancy) and other infections [4]. Other benefits include: - Decrease in physical problems involving a tight foreskin [6] - Lower incidence of inflammation of the head of the penis [7] - Dr. Tom Wiswell looked at the complication rates of having or not having circumcision performed in a study of 136,000 boys born in US army hospitals between 1980 and 1985. 100,000 were circumcised and 193 (0.19%) had complications, mostly minor, with no deaths, but of the 36,000 who were not circumcised the problems were more than ten-times higher and there were 2 deaths [8]. - Problems involving the penis are encountered relatively frequently in pediatric practice. A retrospective study of boys aged 4 months to 12 years found uncircumcised boys exhibited significantly greater frequency of penile problems (14% vs 6%; P < 0.001) and medical visits for penile problems (10% vs 5%; P < 0.05) compared with those who were circumcised [9]. Etc. 2A. Infant Pain Sometimes we endure pain to get the benefits if it's worth it on a cost-benefit analysis. For instance sometimes limbs must be amputated in order to save lives. A more mild example is getting a vaccine shot which might hurt temporarily but in the end overall protect you from something deadly. In short, temporary pain for a lot of potential benefits is not enough to dissuade some parents from making the choice of circumcision. 2B. Memory Pro tries to establish that infants may remember the pain from their circumcision for a short time (though obviously most children and adults do not remember this procedure from infancy, making this somewhat irrelevant). Extend my second rebuttal and see other stats below... 2C. Post-Op Studies Pro's single source for his anti-circumcision propaganda says that babies are known to have a traumatic reaction to the process because they "have trouble sleeping, are more irritable, are less capable of being comforted," etc. However this has hardly been proven to be because of the circumcision. Babies in general tend to cry a lot and are prone to be fussy. Meanwhile, a longitudinal study in the UK involving over 5,000 individuals followed from birth to age 27 found no difference in developmental and behavioral tendencies between circumcised and uncircumcised males [13]. No adverse psychological aftermath has been demonstrated [14]. Long-term psychological, emotional, and sexual impediments from circumcision are anecdotal and can be discounted [15]. 3. Complications Complications are exceptionally low if circumcisions are performed carefully, using strict aseptic technique; it is performed by a trained, experienced practitioner; and only on a healthy, sterile infant. Can Pro prove that the figure of 38% complications occurred under these conditions? If not, then this number is entirely irrelevant. In fact Pro's very own source proves this to be true; for instance the documentary he refers to depicts many problems with circumcisions being performed by rabbis - not doctors. Therefore this statistic is heavily biased and skewed, not taking into consideration only procedures that are done by trained professionals and not just religious figureheads. Moreover the figures I've come across have been significantly lower, with 10% being the highest [5]. A study by others found that of the 11,000 circumcisions performed at New York's Sloane Hospital in 1989, only 6 led to complications, none of which were fatal [10]. Finally, an early survey saw only one death amongst 566,483 baby boys circumcised in New York between 1939 and 1951 [11]. In other words Pro's figure seems grossly exaggerated. 4. Cleanliness Foreskin increases smegma, which is bacteria that rapidly multiplies and causes foul odor. Additionally a survey in London of 150 uncircumcised and 75 circumcised men found 4% of circumcised compared with 26% of uncircumcised men had inferior genital hygiene behavior and did not always wash the entire penis [16]. I'm running out of character space, but I can give more examples in the next round. 5. Useless Foreskin? The foreskin has no role after birth. There is no good evidence of any adverse effect of lack of a foreskin. In fact, the foreskin poses a risk to the male from various diseases and adverse conditions over his lifetime [17]. 6. Improper Framing It's absolutely silly to think that the prefix "un" in uncircumcised implies circumcision should be the norm. That's like saying the word unsatisfied implies satisfied should be the norm, instead of neutral. I won't waste character space on this frivolous argument but I will expand if need-be. 7. Choice The only benefit Pro cited to waiting was choice (though parents don't give children choices in many regards if it's for their well-being) and that there might be less trauma. However there are significant dangers to waiting until adulthood as well; I'll link to save space for now [15]. 8. Long-Term Effects Can Pro please give another source besides Goldman that proves these alleged long-term effects? I only ask because I don't have the book to review this one man's methods of research, and I've already provided sources indicating no significant long-term damage -- certainly not the likes of PTSD. Indeed the whole idea that one right remember this pain "subconsciously" or avoid intimacy in the future because of circumcision is remnant of some eyebrow raising Freudian theories which are known to consist of little to no legitimate evidence. == Conclusion == It has been concluded that 6 UTIs could be prevented for every circumcision complication, and 2 complications can be expected for every penile cancer prevented [12]. So long as there are proven benefits and no significant long-term damage, parents should consider making this choice - especially because it's been proven that there is merit to having this procedure done in infancy, and parents make these kinds of choices on a daily basis. Also extend my cultural and religious arguments. Thank you. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] Ohjimi et al., 1995 [7] Escala & Rickwood, 1989; Fakjian et al., 1990; Edwards, 1996 [8] Wiswell & Hachey, 1993 [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] Russell, 1993 [11] National, 2003 [12] Christakis et al., 2000 [13] Calnan et al., 1978 [14] Schlosberger et al., 1992 [15] http://tinyurl.com... [16] http://tinyurl.com... [17] Schoen, 2007; Diebert, 1