The ethics of Male Genital Mutilation:

I. FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION:My opponent states:"FGM can leave a woman infertile and cause great pain for the rest of her life. Circumcision, on the other hand, is done when the child is just days old the pain is brief and has no long-term negative effects."This is false- circumcision is the most excruciating things a person can go through and takes weeks to heal- all the while the infant is in constant and excruciating pain for no medical reason whatsoever. Furthermore, Male Genital Mutilation does have many long term psychological {1} as well as physiological effects. II. HEALTH BENEFITS:My opponent claims:"The claim that FGM is healthy for Muslim women is another unfounded claim that is based in the most sexist culture in the world take a look at the laws in Muslim-majority countries to find proof of this."Any part of your body could create issues for you later down the road- excising the clitoris, or any other part of the body, is therefore going to have 'health benefits' as a result of the lack of that part. The clitoris, like the foreskin, is subject to a number of health issues later down the road. {2} The removal of the clitoris guarantees that a woman will never suffer from any of these, and these may be called 'health benefits,' but they do not justify cutting parts of a person body off. II. HYGEINE:My opponent claims:"The uncircumcised penis takes a lot more work to clean and to keep clean."Unless you want to contract health issues later down the road, you need to clean your body. It is not logical to cut off parts of your body to avoid cleaning it- let alone cutting parts off of someone else's body because you do not trust them to clean it. If women do not clean their genitals out, they get a yeast infection- and infibulation would make it much easier to clean out a vagina- yet this is unacceptable. Furthermore, I already cited a source which showed that, among the reasons FGM is practiced, hygiene and ease of clean are among them. {3} IV. STD'S AND HIV:My opponent claims:"If the penis becomes unclean then there is a higher chance of contracting some STD'S like HIV by 60% and is one of the leading strategies to help stop the spread of Aids in Africa."All of these studies are fundamentally flawed. Let's start with the claim that circumcision reduces your chances of contracting an STD- the study which claimed this included Jews and Muslims, who do not engage in sexual activity before marriage ad are likely to be monogamous- which reduces their chances of contracting an STD to next to nothing- skewing the results. The studies which claimed circumcision reduces your chances of contracting HIV are also erroneous because they sampled men and circumcised them to compare with those who remained intact over the course of the study- after a circumcision, the male is going to take a few months to recover, and during that time they are not going to engage in sexual activity for obvious reasons. For most of the study the circumcised men were bedridden, and thus incapable of contracting HIV- skewing the results. V. SEXUAL PLEASURE:My opponent claims:"Pleasure works in two ways. Nobody likes fast sex and the removal of the foreskin allows the possibility for both the man and the women to reach their climax. That is the secondary reason for sex is it not? It is selfish to only think of one's self in bed is selfish and if you do that you probably aren't the best partner."My opponent acknowledges that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure, but states that men must sacrifice significant sexual pleasure for the pleasure of their partners. This is not right at all- you cannot sexually injure your children for their future wives benefit- they deserve some basic human rights and are not mere dildos for the pleasure of women. VI. MILTON FRIEDMAN:My opponent states:"As for your claim that "Circumcision of anyone under 18 without medical necessity should be banned" is contradicted in your first argument about Bodily Autonomy where you cited the brilliant economist Milton Friedman who said, "Children are responsible individuals in embryo." Taking this in it's most literal meaning as Milton Friedman was not a man to mince his words means that at any point the child has the capacity to choose to be circumcised but also the capacity to stop it from happening."The keywords are 'in embryo,' parents have a responsibility to protect their children from harm, not a right to harm them themselves!VII. PARENTAL RIGHTS:My opponent states:"At no point, however, does this protect the individual from voluntary actions paid for by the child's parents to benefit the child."It is irrational to say that parents have the right to mutilate their children because they believe it is in their interests. This woman thought that she was acting in her children's interests by drowning them, {4} yet it was still murder and she was still tried for it. Further, my opponent states:"Again the consent ruling gives the power to the parents when it comes to their children and medical options. The state has no business dictating what I do to my kid as far as I don't do any permanent negative damage. Circumcision while the foreskin will not grow back the damages have positive social and health benefits."Circumcision is a permanent damage- you are cutting parts off of their genitalia- that is harmful, and 'parental rights' do not protect child abuse or religious branding. CONCLUSION:Circumcision is nothing less than genital mutilation- it fits the definition of genital mutilation, and violates the right of bodily autonomy. {1}. https://www.psychologytoday.com...{2}. http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...{3}. http://www.unfpa.org...{4}. http://abcnews.go.com...