Parent-elective circumcision of offspring is ethically unacceptable

Moral nihilism-Unless evidence that ethics do exist is provided, there is no reason to assume that it exists.Pro then confuses Moral nihilism with moral relativism.Multiculturalism-"Our medical culture (this is what matters for this debate)..."Says who?"flaws" with AAP:1. It conflicts with other organizations.That's a flaw? Why are the other organizations not flawed because AAP contradicts them?Furthermore, I do not recall pro quoting a single major organization that recommend against circumcision.2.It says circumcision prevents penile cancer even though the numbers show that it would require 322,000 circumcisions to prevent one case of penile cancer.It does say how rare it is.I'm not sure were pro got his # from, the anti-circumcision propaganda says 909- 322,000, & base the #'s on the AAP."3. The effects of the pain from circumcision including long-term changes in infant behavior, are not discussed."False. Pain is discussed See the section called ANALGESIA."long-term changes in infant behavior" aren't mentioned, because there aren't any."4. The medical risks of circumcision are not mentioned..."False again. See "COMPLICATIONS OF THE CIRCUMCISION PROCEDURE"Pros' Sources:"1.A general anesthesia poses serious health risks to newborns and should be administered."Strawman. No one suggests using general anesthesia for newborn circumcision. All three options compared in the study pro mentioned, are local anesthesia."A local anesthesia also poses health risks, and moreover, it is not sufficient to mitigate the pain and trauma associated with circumcision."Both of these assertions are baseless."2. My opponent has not challenged the facts: 40% of the men who are circumcised are unhappy with the result. They report decreased sexual satisfaction..."False.In R2 I wrote:"Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function(1)(2)(3).""The AAP also said circumcision does not have any affect on sensitivity of the penis or sexual pleasure...(5)"In R3 I Directly addressed pros source #2, in great detail.One more major problem with that study (& other similar studies) is:"Mean age of responders was 42 years at circumcision and 46 years at survey."Didn't it occur to anyone that the results might have something to do with the fact that the participants were comparing age 46 sex to age 42 sex."3. My opponent does not address my third source. What he has cited seems fabricated, since it is not written in my source..."Hypocritical lie. What I sited is in pros source, right at the beginning of the section entitled "results"."4. I am not sure what my opponent means when he says this study breaks fundamental rules of methodology..."cum hoc ergo propter hoc.One major problem is that the tested population is not uniform, & they were testing multiple variables at once including ethnicity.The studied population, consisted of multiple ethnicities, some ethnicities naturally have higher rates of PE due to genetics, if those ethnicities also practice circumcision, it will come out looking like circumcision is the cause when it's really genetic. This is a fundamental rule, only test one variable at a time, & keep the subjects uniform except for the one variable being tested. This study broke that rule.The conclusion (thus) ended off: "These associations need further confirmation.""It also took a group of men who had been uncircumcised and later were circumcised, and asked them about the change..."No it did not. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... ." For the record, the study concluded:"We conclude that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in a significant number of men...""No it did not. see link above."5. My opponent does not provide any reason to doubt the accuracy of the study itself..."False.I already explained in R2. The paper admitted that a biased population, Denmark, was used.& thus ended off:"Thorough examination of these matters in areas where male circumcision is more common is warranted."6.As I pointed out earlier, there are multiple studies that contradict this one.The fact that this one is New Zeland (which like Denmark has an anti circumcision population) based, may have something to do with that. "7. The numbers are not exaggerated ..."Where the source gave a range, Pro conveniently just wrote the highest #. That's exaggerating."and the source does have references for the things it says."The reference of the source does not match what the source wrote:1)The source listed a # of obscure possible complications that arise, but the reference only mentions staph. infections.2)The rate of staph. infections stated by the source, was not mentioned in the reference.I pointed this out to pro, & pro has yet to explain.Also of note the study said that the infections were a result of carelessness.Pro's source 8, is actually the reference that was used by his source 7."9. The single case of penile excision..."Exactly. This is a classic informal fallacy, known as hasty generalization, AKA , the "I know of a case where..." fallacy. One case - out of millions.Furthermore the tool used in that case is long out of use."10. The study is not directly about circumcision..."Thank you you for acknowledging that.Furthermore:a) The paper & Abstract repeatedly says things like:"our understanding of the underlying mechanisms remains rudimentary"&"Little is known about the effects of full-term pain in neonates."b) When the paper & abstract refer to pain they specify "repetitive pain".c) As has been mentioned numerous times there are anesthetics for circumcision.11. Not recommending routine male circumcisions means the medical benefits of circumcision do not outweigh the risks.a) Not recommending routine M.C. =/= Recommending not to perform M.C.. Or that M.C. is unethical.b) The paper used cost as a factor, it was discussing if it's worth the $.I can actually flip pro's argument, & say, from the fact that the paper did not advise against circumcision, implies that it is not a bad choice from a health perspectiveIt's just might not be worth the money.& finally I'll point out again that others such as AAP say clearly that "the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks""a chile [sic] has a right to physical integrity which should not be infringed upon by their parents."Again there are many factors here, just throwing out a term like "physical integrity", is not a reason in & of itself. If one must wait, it will be much more painful (even with anesthesia), dangerous, expensive, etc. than it would be for a newborn (R1).Parents have a right & obligation to do what is best for the child.Take a religious Jew for example, by not circumcising now, the child will almost definitely go through a much more dangerous & painful circumcision. The parent should have a right to protect the child from that added pain & risk.We allow parents to make all kinds of decisions regarding children, ear piercing, braces, vacenies,Driving with a child in a car is not any less risky than circumcision, No one out laws it."Undoing Circumcision:http://www.restoringtally.com... http://www.foregen.org..."FGMI am saying female genital mutilation is not any different than male genital mutilation..."That's the problem. This is called Mind projection fallacy.The fact of the matter is that:"It's far more disfiguring, disabling and potentially dangerous than male circumcision so cannot be viewed in the same light." http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...STD:My opponent claims the studies are "skewed" because Jews & Muslims are more careful about sex.Studies were done in Africa.My opponent says people can use condoms.That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that people are still getting STD. & circumcision reduces that likelihood.Out of Characters.