Neonatal male genital mutilation should be made illegal in developed nations

Wow, not much time left. Well, here goes my best shot at an opening statement.First, my thanks to PRO for clarifying that what is under debate is convincing the majority in developed nations. Thus, I will argue that MGM is not something the the majority of people in developed nations should vote to outlaw.I. Who Determines Harm?My first point is about the question who determines what constitutes a harm in a developed nation. The reason this point is important is because from the viewpoint of religions that practice circumcision, not to circumcise a male child would constitute a harm to the child. In Judaism:"circumcision is an outward physical sign of the eternal covenant between G-d and the Jewish people. It is also a sign that the Jewish people will be perpetuated through the circumcised man." [1]In Islam:"In the Sunnah, Muhammad stated that circumcision was a 'law for men'",and"The main reason given for the ritual is cleanliness. It is essential that every Muslim washes before praying. It is important that no urine is left on the body. Muslims believe the removal of the foreskin makes it easier to keep the penis clean because urine can't get trapped there."in addition:"For the majority of Muslims, circumcision is seen as an introduction to the Islamic faith and a sign of belonging." [2]In other words, circumcision is an essential aspect to at least two major religions that are currently being practiced by many people in developed nations. According to those religions, it would be a religious harm to boys not to be circumcised (i.e. it would be a violation of God's will). Boys who are not circumcised might consider themselves to be sinning against their god, or not be full members of their religious community.The reason this is important is because PRO has mentioned some harms, almost exclusively harms to sexual pleasure. But to elevate loss of sexual pleasure as a greater harm than being in violation of God's command (from the perspective of a given individual) seems like an illegitimate elevation of some harms over others.One of the important pillars of modern developed nations has been a freedom of conscience in religious questions. This means that the state or government does not legislate so as to elevate one religious viewpoint over another. An important aspect of religious views is what constitutes harm, and to fix by legislation that sexual pleasure trumps religious observance is overreaching the worldview neutrality that a democratic government is supposed to have.If there is some ultimate trumping view of harm that should dominate in a democracy than I think PRO needs to a) provide an account of this and b) give an argument why this is the right account.II. Religious LibertyThis point is similar to the first. For many years Islam and Judaism have been practiced in developed nations. As a matter of fact, whenever some religions became persecuted by the state, this has lead to great violence in the 20th century. However, at times, new religions have begun to take hold in developed nations, but these religions violated some of the fundamental values of the people already living in the country, and have as a result been greatly limited in their liberties. For example, Scientology is on a federal cult watch list in Germany, due to its subversive nature,"On December 7, 2007, German federal and state interior ministers expressed the opinion that the Scientology organization was continuing to pursue anti-constitutional goals, restricting "essential basic and human rights like the dignity of man or the right to equal treatment", and asked Germany's domestic intelligence agencies to collect and evaluate the information required for a possible judicial inquiry aimed at banning the organization." [3]Another example is the state of Utah, which was not allowed to join the United States until Mormonism had renounced its stance on polygamy. [4]I suspect that if a religion which endorsed FGM began to be practiced in a developed nation, it would and should find similar resistance. However, Islam and Judaism have for a long time been allowed to practice their tenants and commitments in developed nation. People of these religions settled in these countries under the understanding that they were guaranteed their religious freedom to practice their beliefs.A ban on MGM would constitute a government label on these religions saying: "This religion is a false religion." Here is why: According to these religions, God commanded them to circumcise. Presumably, everything that God commands is good. So if the government bans the practice, then this amounts to saying "Either God is bad, or your religion is false in its reporting of God's commands." This would clearly constitute a kind of dis-establishment of religion. And this, as much as anything else, is a violation of religious liberty.I want to emphasize here that there is a difference between not allowing a religion in to a country in the first place, because it fundamentally clashes with the values of that society, and deciding to declare a religion false after it has already been established and practiced there, and many citizens of the country have understood themselves as being free to practice their religion.III What are Legitimate Reasons to Change the Law? Finally, I want to re-iterate something I brought up in the 'acceptance and definition' part. We can talk about the medical benefits and sexual detriment of MGM all day long, but to jump from there to "we should ban it" is nothing but a non-sequitur. We need some principled understanding of what things should be banned and legislated, and what things should not be. I would like to emphasize the the burden of proof here lies with PRO. I am merely defending the legal status quo, so I do not need to give criteria or considerations for what it takes to change the law. PRO on the other hand is arguing for a change, so PRO will need to establish why the interesting medical considerations about MGM are in any way relevant to what should be the laws in a developed nation.Unless PRO can establish that his list of medical claims have important implications for changing the law, he cannot win this debate. I had hoped that PRO would have listed some of these considerations in the opening statement, so that I could have replied to it sooner. Just to motivate this point further, let me give some examples of what principles are obviously bad principles for changing the law:A. If it does harm, then it should be illegal- Marital infidelity, lying, and being rude at the grocery store all does harm, yet we are not having laws against these thingsB. If the majority of the people thinks it is wrong, then it should be illegal- The majority of the people think that Secular Humanism, Islam, Judaism, Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Methodism, and Baptists are wrong. But we obviously can't outlaw every worldview.PRO can't appeal to A or B to link his medical considerations to legality. What is the alternate principle at work here?IV ConclusionThus, PRO owes us an account of harm, an account of the limits of religious liberty, and an account of when to change the law.This is it for my opening statement. I will of course have an opportunity to rebut PRO's opening statement in the third round, but I thought this was the place to establish the case for keeping MGM legal for 'any' reason. I think my defense mainly applies to religious reasons, so if I cannot establish that it should stay legal for medical or aesthetic reasons, I still defended CON in the way intended in the debate announcement.I am out of characters once again, so I hope to get into more interesting discussion in the following rounds.-------------------------[1] http://www.jewfaq.org...[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...