Neonatal male genital mutilation should be made illegal in developed nations

I thank Con for a great argument against outlawing MGM for religious reasons. If Con wishes, he may base most of his arguments on religion; however, I would like to see at least a few points in later rounds for keeping MGM legal for people who mutilate for non-religious purposes.Con began with one of the most elaborate strawmen I've ever seen, albeit probably accidentally. Con thinks that I argue that MGM should be outlawed because it is harmful.I do not argue that, for Muslim or Jewish men, sexual pleasure, protection from keratinization, taking away risk of complication, masturbatory pleasure, and masturbatory ease are more important than God's command. In fact, I know Muslim and Jewish men for whom God's command is more important than almost anything. For men and women such as these, who wish to show devotion to their God in the form of genital cutting, I wish to protect their right to get circumcised when they are over the age of 18. Until then, however, it is not a parent's right to permanently mutilate a person.I do not argue that things that do harm should be illegal. I argue that things that do permanent harm without consent, where the harm being done is at the level of the harm done by MGM, should be illegal.So, the question should not be of whether or not the harm that MGM does is sufficient to make it illegal, but of whether or not the harm done by keeping intact all of the boys in a particular religion for only the first eighteen years of their lives outweighs the harm done by mutilating all of the boys who are born to Muslim or Jewish parents who decide that they do not align completely with their parents' religion, or, for any other reason, feel that the degree of sexual pleasure, masturbatory pleasure and/or masturbatory ease that MGM destroys, or the protection from keratinization and abrasions that the foreskin offers, outweigh the command of their parents' God, as well as the harm done to all of the men who suffer from complications due to MGM. All the harm done by the boys practicing all but one part of their religion instead of every part of their religion, moreover, will only be experienced during their first eighteen years, whereas the harm done by MGM is experienced for the entire lifetime of those who later decide that they are not part of that religion. Why should it be presumed that the child will want to be mutilated?In addition, Con must either take the position that all of the legislation regarding FGM that has been made in developed nations [1] was unwarranted and that FGM should remain legal in any developed nations where it has not yet been outlawed, or explain why all of his arguments about why religious liberty justifies the continued legality of MGM do not apply to FGM (Remember, our definition of FGM refers to type 1 FGM, which involves only the removal of the clitoris and clitoral hood), including the argument explaining why the harm done to boys of a certain religion by keeping them intact for the first eighteen years of their life is greater than the harm done by mutilating them at birth, as many Muslims believe that FGM is important in Islam [2].Some people believe that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it is their religion. Others believe that religion should be abolished completely. I argue that religion should have no consideration in our lawmaking. If someone is doing something immoral, it shouldn't matter that they think their God wants them to. After all, someone can claim that they are part of a religion that requires them to do horrible things, such as cut of parts of their daughters' genitals (Islam), let their children die if they have a condition that requires them to get a blood transfusion (Jehovah's Witnesses), or require that all the meat they eat be slaughtered in a cruel way that involves slicing the animal's throat and bleeding it to death (Judaism). Con argues that arguments from religious freedom should hold more weight when the religion has already been established and is practiced by people who settled in countries with the understanding that they would be free to practice their religion. But why should the fact that it is their religion affect this? That is to say, why does this argument apply specifically to religious issues? After all, doesn't making anything illegal disrupt the lives of people who had settled in the country with the understanding that they would be able to practice the thing being made illegal freely? To conclude, in his next argument, Con needs to explain a few things. One of them is why it should be presumed that boys whose parents belong to a particular religion are going to remain that religion for the rest of their lives and why the same should not be presumed for girls, or why the harm caused by leaving boys intact until they turn 18 is greater than the harm caused by mutilating those who later do not wish to be mutilated and why this harm is lesser for girls. Con must also explain either why making something illegal that has been practiced in the name of religion should disturb people any more than making something illegal that has been practiced for any other reason and why this does not apply to female genital mutilation, letting children die when their lives could be saved by a blood transfusion, or ritual slaughtering involving animal cruelty, or why people should be allowed more freedom to do inhumane things when it is their religion to do so and why this does not apply to female genital mutilation, letting children die when their lives could be saved by a blood transfusion, or ritual slaughtering involving animal cruelty.I rushed to post this a day early because I anticipate losing power in the next few hours, and I apologize in advance for any problems that stem from this. I look forward to seeing Con's argument. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...