Parents should not be allowed to circumcise their male infants

There are two main features of the male circumcision debate: religion and health. I will first explain how circumcision can be considered child abuse and then detail why religion and the supposed health benefits are insufficient for otherwise justifying it. So- what is circumcision? Basically, the foreskin is sliced off with a scalpel. Pain medication may or may not be used. [1] Though it only takes about 15 minutes, it is a form of surgery, and not something to be taken lightly. Once the procedure is completed, it is irreversible. Though the child may not remember having undergone this operation, he is stuck with the consequences for life. Many men who were circumcised as infants grow up to feel a sense of incompleteness and loss at having been mutilated at such a young age. Furthermore, circumcision may well decrease the ability of a man to experience sexual pleasure. [2] Children are born under the care and guardianship of their parents; it is generally assumed that the parents have the children's best interests at heart, and this is why they are allowed to make decisions on their child's behalf. I do not question this right in most cases. However, the permanent removal of a body part does not fall under the purview of these parental rights. It is an unnecessary violation of the integrity of the child's body. Like all forms of child abuse, it inflicts a harm on a child that is not in his long term interest. I would ask my opponent to consider a parallel case- imagine a parent who desired to have her child's pinky finger removed. The reasoning behind it is irrelevant; the important issue is that she considers this issue important to her child's welfare. This treatment would not, should not, be condoned by anyone, even though the pinky finger is ultimately expendable, as is the foreskin. Why? Because the child, though not possessing the full rights of an adult, is still subject to certain inviolable limitations regarding actions one may take against him. For example, it is clearly wrong to kill a child, even though it is not wrong to coerce the child to eat his vegetables or get vaccinations. What's the difference? The actions that are forbidden cause irreparable damage to the child with no reasonable justification backing them. On the other hand, the actions that are permitted are (1) not permanent alterations to the child's bodily integrity and (2) accrue clear benefits to the child. Furthermore, it is NOT the case that if the above actions were not enforced by the parents, the benefits could be gained later on. In other words, if you don't get your childhood vaccinations, you are at risk for many serious diseases throughout your entire childhood, putting you in grave danger from extremely preventable illnesses. And of course, if you have an unhealthy diet as a child, not only are you much more likely to have an unhealthy lifestyle as an adult, but also you are at risk for diabetes and high blood pressure, among other problems, which again, drastically increase risk of illness or death. It is analogous to the difference between having your child's appendix removed because it is infected and threatens his life, and having it removed on a whim. As detailed in R1, child abuse is described as an act that leads to the actual or potential harm of children. Clearly, removing a body part against the child's will induces actual harm, in the form of physical mutilation and a lifelong diminution of sexual pleasure, as well as the physical pain of the experience (since anesthesia is not always used). The procedure also causes a potential emotional harm, in the form of future dissatisfactions stemming from having a disfigured body part. [3][4] Of course, this is not to say that circumcision should be illegal in all circumstances. Far from it. Once the child is old enough to give consent, he is more than welcome to undergo or not undergo the operation if he believes it is the right thing for him to do. One of the main arguments in favor of the circumcision of infants is religious in nature. Restricting parents' ability to perform this ritual is thought to be a form of religious discrimination; people argue that the right to circumcise one's child is required in order to provide freedom of religion. However, I do not advocate making circumcision illegal. I simply advocate outlawing its application to children too young to consent to undergoing the operation. Though I am not religious, I do support freedom of religion- to a point. As my opponent would agree, female circumcision is an excessive violation of a child's freedom; whether it is advocated by a religion or not, it should not be performed on individuals who have not given consent to the procedure. The mere support of religious authority does not exempt one from the rules of proper conduct. To use another example, in the bible it clearly states that certain crimes are punishable by being stoned to death- this so called "law" is now ignored. Even if some individuals did attempt to put it into practice, however, they would be forbidden from doing so, and punished if they went ahead and did it anyway, because such acts are a violation of the victim's person. I would like to repeat again, I see nothing wrong with males choosing to become circumcised for religious reasons. What I am against is parents making this decision for their kids at a young age, before they are old enough to decide for themselves. The other major plank of the pro-circumcision argument is health. Advocates claim that being uncircumcised can lower the transmission of HIV, as well as decrease the risk of inflammation of the glans. Especially in the case of HIV prevention, the results are compelling. One study found that circumcised men were 55-65% less likely to contract the virus than uncircumcised men. [5] This is great news, especially if you are at high risk for AIDS transmission. However, such data do not support the claim that parents should be able to mutilate their children. In the first place, babies don't engage in sexual intercourse. Leaving their foreskin intact until they are older and able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to undergo the operation will not put them at great risk from STDs. Furthermore, to put these results in perspective, a condom reduces the risk of HIV transmission by 80-94%. [6] Those are much better odds, and don't cause permanent alteration to an individual's body, not to mention the added benefit of also preventing unwanted pregnancy. As for the hygiene issue, proper cleaning can eliminate the problems with bacteria getting trapped under the foreskin and causing inflammation. [7] There's certainly no need to cut it off simply to prevent it from getting dirty. If, when he is older, the child feels that he would rather be circumcised than have to deal with the extra effort it takes to keep the foreskin clean, he is more than welcome to make that choice. That doesn't mean that his parents have the right to make that kind of permanent, irreversible decision for him. In summary, I have shown that the circumcision of infants is a violation of individual sovereignty, one which is not justified by appeal to either religion or health. It's clear that any benefits due to circumcision can accrue to someone having the operation once they are old enough to provide consent to it. Thus mutilating infants is an act of violence against them and should not be tolerated in civil society. 1. http://www.associatedcontent.com... 2. http://www.cirp.org... 3. http://www.cirp.org... 4. http://www.cirp.org... 5. http://www.scientificamerican.com... 6. http://www.ashastd.org... 7. http://familydoctor.org...