Circumcision should not be performed on Babies.

Thank You- As this is the last round, I'll jump right into it. Since circumcision seems to have pros and cons, it goes to show that it's not necessarily a black and white issue of it being a violation.My opponent seems to forget that this debate is not about whether circumcision is a violation. It's about whether or not we should perform it on babies. Violation was only one of my arguments. You are violating a babies right by strapping him to a bed and cutting off its foreskin regardless or not if it can be beneficial to fighting HIV/AIDSNot everyone wants to have their penis altered when they get older in life. "That was close to ten years ago now, and since that time I consider it to be the best decision I have made. Hygiene is no longer an issue, the lack of foreskin keeps the penis clean at all times. Nor have I noticed ANY loss of sensation. On the contrary, I find intercourse improved 10 fold since the circumcision. The few microns the skin that the glans may have thickened makes no difference at all to sexual receptiveness and I find it in some ways it is more sensitive." [2] This is an anecdotal fallacy, Con is using a personal testimony for a basis of his argument. Not everyone feels exactly like this one case in millions. As I have established there are many men who resent their parents for circumcising them as children. A man can always have a circumcision later in life if he wishes to do so. Well there's a point to make. Since we've established that circumcision is overall beneficial, why not just let the person choose to circumcise later? Well there's nothing wrong with that. But there's also nothing wrong if one chooses to circumcise one's children.Con has agreed with me that circumcision can lead to decreased penile sensitivity, and that the reason to continue is because it's beneficial. Well the reason for circumcising later is you are able to consent to it. As I have proven in the second round, not everyone wants to have had a circumcision. Men have a right over their own bodies. Circumcision physically hurts your child and changes their penis forever. The reason to circumcise later is so people have the will to choose for themselves. Rebuttal for comparison to circumcision and bilingualismThis is a weak argument. And the "false cause"/"texas sharpshooter" Fallacy My opponent has compared circumcision to learning multiple languages. Not only is this completely ridiculous It's totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. Learning a language does not harbor any negative effects as far as I'm aware of. Not to mention is in a completely different ball park from Circumcision. Learning a new language is something that requires effort and concentration from teacher and student. It does not involve medically strapping down an infant and cutting off their foreskin. Learning a second language does not involve surgically removing a part of the male penis and possibly causing complications(I'll talk about this more in other rounds) ConclusionIn this debate i've concluded that men always have the option to circumcise later, and that it is immoral and wrong to circumcise a baby against it's will. I've provided evidence to adverse effects from circumcision. And displayed that AIDS/HIV is not a serious threat to males with foreskin intact. Since we all have a right over our own bodies. It shouldn't be legal to perform a circumcision on babies against their will.