Circumcision Should be Criminalized

SummaryIf you were to witness a grown man being strapped to a table to spend the next 10 minutes having parts of his penis sawed off, it would be torture. It doesn't matter if the torturer is a religious fanatic who imagines himself to be doing the work of some supernatural monster or saving his victim from the monster's own torture chamber. It doesn't matter if it is an officious and misinformed quack who wants to save the man from HIV. In either case, the act would be considered a crime by even the most defective legal system in the world. Simply changing the victim to a defenseless child should in no way change the legality of the act and if the torture of a child is not immoral then nothing is. Circumcision has been called "a cure looking for a disease". Throughout history, the advocates of child genital mutilation have shown a pattern of advancing specious arguments to support harming children. As I've shown, the medical arguments for circumcision have been exploded. The "secular" arguments for circumcision are simply the latest justification to extend this inhumane practice. (And no, it doesn't follow from my arguments that medically necessary operations such as tonsillectomy or appendectomy should be criminalized.) Incentives are key to understanding economics and human behaviour. The fact that hospitals make billions of dollars a year (R1) helps us understand why the practice continues despite the fact that no national or international medical association recommends routine circumcision (R2). In round 1 I made this argument: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child says that a child has a right to not be mutilated. The U.S. Constitution declares that a child has a right to security and property. The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act declares that all infants are considered persons under federal law. Female genital mutilation is already banned under US federal law. Torture is prohibited by Article 5 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Convention Against Torture. We are obliged by these treaties, constitutions and acts to outlaw the torture of children. (It seems in questionable taste to compare the suffering experienced by babies during circumcision to walking across the street on your hands). In round 2 I pointed out that a condom is a more sensible way to prevent the contraction of HIV. My opponent didn't respond to this. My opponent didn't attempt to refute the logic that "the fewer the body parts the better". Apparently breast should be forcibly and violently removed from little girls if breasts happened to serve no purpose. It turns out that breast aren't really needed. Formula can be used to feed infants and sexual arousal would still occur in the absence of breasts. And if we are talking about saving the lives of tens of thousands of women a year, what is the significance of aesthetics. So the logic of circumcision supports the logic of removing breasts. The only difference is that the evidence that circumcision has any health benefits is virtually nonexistent. As I said, the reality is that if you have your son circumcision, there is a 4 percent chance he will NOT experience horrific torture since only 4 percent of babies in the U.S. and Canada are given anesthetics. Con could not refute this. Con did not respond to the findings of the German court which stated that circumcision "conflicts with the child's interest of later being able to make his own decision on his religious affiliation.". My opponent argues that parents should be free to circumcise their children if they think their children will be tortured for eternity by decree of the creator of the universe (assuming what is normally implied by the word "hell"). Such a belief has no foundation in reality. And what does Con mean by, "It is irrelevant what you or I believe."; as if our arguments must stop where the beliefs of the deluded begin. Rational people have a say in the affairs of society too and there is no time that the voices of reason are needed more than when innocent victims are being brutalized by religious fanatics. Conduct As I clarified in the comment section, it should be evident, when taking my first round as a whole, that I am not arguing against all circumcisions (i.e., medically necessary ones). I'm afraid I have to point out that my opponent is playing semantics when he claims I am arguing all circumcision on children should be criminalized. Semantics were explicitly forbade in round 1 and Con should therefore loss the conduct point. Sources I hope that I have impressed upon the reader that I have made a good faith effort to write a well-researched presentation of the arguments for my side, based on good evidence backed up by 30 sources. As Con pointed out, one of my citations was from an advocacy group. However, I used it as a source for a negative claim: *No* national or international medical association recommends routine circumcision. It would be impossible to find an unbiased source that explicitly made that claim so I thought a biased source would be better than none. And, as I pointed out, Con didn't disprove the claim which he should have been able to do in order to justify circumcision. I only used Wikipedia as a source when I made a claim that was too uncontroversial to require something more authoritative. Spelling and Grammar Since Con is not a native English speaker, I asked, in round 1, that the voters not detract Con's Spelling and Grammar point as long as he wrote as well as he did in the comment section. As it turns out, Con writes better than many (many) other debaters I've seen on this site and should not loss the S/G point. Thanks I want to thank my opponent for proving a well-researched and well-thought-out defence of an indefensible practice. He presented the pro-mutilation arguments as strongly as anyone could be expected to. It's always good to get a strong debater as an opponent and I look forward to debating him again one day. ***** If you are considering circumcising your child and I have failed to persuade you, please research the facts first. A dispassionate inquiry into the subject will yield the same conclusion that all national and international medical association have come to: Circumcision is not necessary.