Neonatal male genital mutilation should be made illegal in developed nations

Although I did not expect Con to use all 8000 characters in Round One, I appreciate his enthusiasm. I do not argue that MGM should be made illegal in spite of a majority, nor do I expect Con to argue that it should be kept legal in spite of a majority. This debate should be over whether or not MGM should be made legal by virtue of convincing the majority. Con's proposal to the definition change of MGM and FGM are interesting. They imply that GM is only GM if the foreskin or clitoris and clitoral hood are healthy and functioning. However, amputation is not always necessary to cure a problem with the female or male genitals. MGM is often perscribed for phimosis, for example, but that is almost always unnecessary [1]. The only reasons for which amputation of the foreskin is medically necessary are frostbite (which can be avoided), cancer (which is rare), and extreme infection (such as balantitis xerotica obliterans and other rare infections). For this reason, I reject Con's definition proposal, but maintain that my position is that MGM and FGM should be illegal in developed nations for all people under the age of 18 for all reasons other than medical NECESSITY. In other words, the fact that MGM would be an effective cure for a patient's condition does not necessarily mean that MGM should be performed on the patient. I concede that MGM does not necessarily reduce sexual pleasure later on. After all, it is possible that a MGM victim may die before reaching sexual maturity, and it is possible that the victim may never have sex during his life. I would like to expand this contention to "That MGM can reduce sexual pleasure and masturbatory pleasure and ease". A study [2] has been performed that suggest that sexual pleasure, masturbatory pleasure, and masturbatory ease decrease after MGM. It is difficult to determine the degree by which these factors change because of the obvious lack of a way to measure sexual pleasure. I agree with Con that the fact that MGM CAN cause complications is not very relevant. The contention should state "That MGM has a high risk of causing complications". Here is a webpage [3] that shows the prevalence of complications in MGM victims, with some studies showing complication rates as high as 10%. More severe complications are rarer, but why subject someone to any degree of risk when the procedure is unnecessary? Parents have a lot of say in decisions made about their children. Genital mutilation should not be one of them. After all, it permanently removes healthy, functional tissue without consent. Any procedure that permanently removes healthy, functional tissue without consent should have a good reason behind it, which MGM and FGM do not. MGM is a gender rights issue. Part of the reason I use the term "Genital mutilation" to describe it is that that is the term that is commonly used to describe FGM. FGM used to be reffered to as "Female circumcision" or "Female genital cutting". Now, people use the word "Mutilation" to describe it because that's what it is. MGM is very similar to FGM in many regards, but I am mostly going to focus on showing that they are equivalent as human rights issues: Both reduce sexual pleasure WITHOUT sacrificing the victim's ability to orgasm [4], and both obviously permanently remove healthy, functional tissue without consent. To add to the "Functioning" part of my first contention, I would like to point out that the foreskin plays a number of important roles, the most obvious being protecting the glans from abrasions and keratinization, a process that turns the surface of the glans thick and leathery, reducing sexual pleasure. Keratinization happens to virtually all mutilated men to some degree, but is very rare in intact men. The foreskin lubricates the glans, providing an important function during intercourse. It is often said that the foreskin has 20,000 nerve endings, but I cannot find an actual study as to how many there are, but there are at least quite a few. In conclusion, MGM permanently removes healthy, functional tissue without consent. The victim is harmed by the procedure, experiencing less sensitivity, sexual pleasure, masturbatory pleasure, and masturbatory ease later on. [1] http://www.cirp.org... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3] http://circumstitions.com... [4] http://www.circumstitions.com...