Neonatal male genital mutilation should be made illegal in developed nations

Con began by favoring performing a permanent, mutilating procedure with few medical benefits and vast sexual and masturbatory drawbacks during a time optimal for performing such a procedure over giving the male the right to withhold his consent to be mutilated in the first place. The fact that the time that the victim is unable to give consent is the best time to do the procedure is trivial. If we do not know that the neonate wants to have the procedure done, we shouldn't perform the procedure at all. Con claims that waiting until the victim is 18 is "unnecessarily risky," but has provided no insight as to the risks to which he is referring, other than the trauma that an adult patient might experience. I would like to point out that an adult undertaking the procedure would not experience trauma of any kind. Using the definition you provided for traumatize, "Subject to lasting shock as a result of an emotionally disturbing experience or physical injury," and assuming that an adult opting to having the procedure performed would be emotionally ready to have such a procedure performed, and would be anesthesized fully, we can determine that the adult will not be traumatized by the emotional experience of being mutilated or from the pain itself. Once again, the right to withhold consent to a permanent, harmful procedure (And yes, the procedure is harmful. It is irrelevant whether or not the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. The fact that there are drawbacks that are not vastly outweighed by the benefits, and there is therefore a large chance that the victim would not have consented to the procedure, is the deciding factor here.) should outwiegh the right to be mutilated at a time where there are less risks associated with the mutilation. Con also asserts that we should mutilate the infants' genitals without anaesthesia because it still doesn't cause trauma. I would like to emphasize that trauma is not the only factor here: the victim still feels pain. Con points out the vast minority of post-mutilation patients who say that their sex lives improved or that their masturbation became easier after the procedure. The fact that there are people who claim that they experienced the opposite of what everyone else experienced is trivial to the debate, as the majority of the people say that their sex lives worsened and that masturbation became more difficult. That's how studies work. I don't know why Con thinks that this is an argument that sexual pleasure is not lost due to mutilation. It is impossible to determine a newborn's future religious beliefs. If a boy is born to a Jewish or Muslim family in a developed nation, we cannot anticipate whether or not the neonate will continue to be part of that religion throughout his life. It is easy for him to later decide that he did not want to be mutilated. Con claims that outlawing male genital mutilation would cause uproar in religious groups. Lawmakers should not make consideration towards peoples religious beliefs when the members of the religion are doing something inhumane. The fact that they are doing this for religious purposes is trivial. If a baby is born to a family of Jehovah's Witnesses who requires an emergency blood transfusion, it is the parents' religious beliefs that the child should not live [1]. In the United States, there are 1,154,275 Jehovah's witnesses [2], a significant amount. (In comparison, there are 5,275,000 Jews in the U.S. [3].) However, throughout the developed world, we have continued to intervene and perform life saving operations on these children, regardless of their parents' beliefs [4] [5] [6] [7]. We do this because we have determined that the Jehovah's Witnesses are doing something that is unethical. Once again, the fact that a group of people do something because they think that their God wants them to is irrelevant to the morals of the practice, especially when the person that they are performing the procedure on might not be part of the religion and is unable to give consent. Con has confused the studies performed in Africa as being relevant to the developed world. I explained why the location where the studies were performed is relevant in a previous round, but I will state it again. "In uncircumcised men, [anaerobic] bacteria may provoke inflammation in the genitalia, thereby improving the chances that immune cells will be in the vicinity for HIV viruses to infect" (Scientific American). Regular bathing, which is almost always accessible in developed nations, can prevent anaerobic bacteria. The 60% increase in Hiv infections in intact men is otherwise inexplicable. These studies are irrelevant in developed nations. Con has not refuted this point. We have still determined that no relevant study exists that supports genital mutilation being an effective preventative measure against HIV in the developed world. I would also like to point out something that I mentioned in Round 2, that condoms are a much, much more effective preventative measure against HIV. Even in Africa, where these studies are relevant, MGM is an unnecessarily crude procedure with much less of a preventative effect than condoms. Con also cites a study that he claims shows that intact boys are more prone to disease than mutilated boys. The study regards urinary tract infection among mutilated and intact boys. When UTIs are treated with antibiotics, the fever disappears in about 48 hours, with the entire treatment lasting 7-14 days [8]. Urinary tract infections affact about 2% of boys [9]. Male genital mutilation is a permanent, harmful treatment for a rare and easily curable disease. Con has waited until round four to refute an argument I presented in Round Two. To clarify, yes, I am disappointed by this. I will discuss it anyway here. Male genital mutilation is a gender rights issue. One argument I see frequently about why MGM and FGM are unequal is that women who have been mutilated are unable to experience an orgasm, or experience orgasm less frequently than intact women. However, as a Nigerian study with a sample size of 1836 shows, mutilated women experience sexual arousal and orgasm as frequently as intact women [10]. Mutilated women still experience less pleasure during sex and masturbation, however, as do mutilated men. Another common argument regarding the inequality of FGM and MGM is that the clitoris is analogous to the penis, and therefore FGM is equal to the removal of the entire penis. I would like to point out that "analogous" does not mean "equal". The nipples of a man are analogous to the nipples of a woman, but if you cut off the nipples of a woman, a significant function is lost, that being the ability to feed her babies. Similarly, the removal of the penis destroys the man's ability to reproduce, which FGM does not. Men who are mutilated experience difficulty during masturbation and less pleasure during sex, which is similar to the experiences of FGM victims. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions [2] http://www.watchtower.org... [3]http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org... [4] http://www.rte.ie... [5] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [6] http://www.newstalk.ie... [7] http://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk... [8] http://thechildren.com... [9] http://www.cscc.unc.edu... [10] http://www.circumstitions.com...