Circumcision should not be performed on Babies.

Thanks, Pro.You will see that my opponent is the one making the statement. This means that the burden of proof is on him. If I go around and claim something is true, I am the one who should defend that statement.So keep that in mind. Let's get to it...My opponent's argumentMy opponent has now provided negative effects of circumcision. He says that since circumcision causes these negative effects, it should not be performed upon someone before they can consent.However, as I have pointed out, there are positive affects of circumcision. Namely that it reduces HIV by 40-50% and reduces chance of infection by 42%. In addition to this, I would like to point out that when someone is circumcised, the chances of getting penile cancer are literally next to nothing [1]. Furthermore, when foreskin is present, the cancer of the cervix called the Human Papilloma Virus can hide under the foreskin. This can then be transferred to women. The British Medical Journal in April 2002 estimated that if all men were circumcised, at least 20% of cervix cancer would be avoided.My opponent cites wikipedia to show that there is only a 0.6% decreased chance of HIV. I'm not so sure about this. While the studies I cited were from Africa, which may be a different situation, it does go to show that it is much easier to avoid HIV and infections in general when one is circumcised.Circumcision makes it just easier to keep one's penis clean.Infants and circumcisionNow the topic for debate is that babies shouldn't be circumcised. However, if I can show that circumcision is plausibly more beneficial than not, I believe this would go to show that circumcision is justified on babies.You'll also notice that while my opponent lists negative affects of circumcision, he doesn't provide what the chances of these affects are. Yes, circumcision decreases penile sensitivity. However, decreasing the sensitivity of the penis isn't necessarily a harm. Why? Because the penis can still function as it should. There's two basic functions of the penis... 1. To pee. 2. To get semen into the right place.Does circumcision necesarily hinder these? Not at all. Sure, it's possible it could, but my opponent has not shown the chances that this will happen. I expect the chances this will happen are very very low.Pros and cons...Since circumcision seems to have pros and cons, it goes to show that it's not necessarily a black and white issue of it being a violation.Could circumcision cause more negative affects than good affects? Sure, maybe.Could it cause more positive affects than negative affects? This seems just as plausible.So what my opponent *must* do, is show that the overall effects of circumcision are negative. He must show that there is a considerable danger from circumcision that the penis will not be able to function correctly. He needs to show that this is clear. Until then, he has not met his burden.If an action causes harms but also benefits someone, is it a violation of their rights? Well if it also benefits them, then isn't it just as much a help to them?So my opponent *must* show that the negative effects of circumcision are substantially higher than the positive effects.But all he's done is show that it's possible circumcision could cause negative effects, and shown that it causes minor negative effects. The possibility of negative effects and minor negative effects seems doesn't seem like much, when compared to the benefits of circumcision.Why not circumcise later?Well there's a point to make. Since we've established that circumcision is overall beneficial, why not just let the person choose to circumcise later? Well there's nothing wrong with that. But there's also nothing wrong if one chooses to circumcise one's children.Our parents have to look over us and make choices for us when we are babies all the time. So if there's something that's overall beneficial, there's nothing wrong with them choosing it for us.In addition to this, circumcision is possible to reverse with foreskin restoration processes. [3] There's operations and also other methods."That was close to ten years ago now, and since that time I consider it to be the best decision I have made. Hygiene is no longer an issue, the lack of foreskin keeps the penis clean at all times. Nor have I noticed ANY loss of sensation. On the contrary, I find intercourse improved 10 fold since the circumcision. The few microns the skin that the glans may have thickened makes no difference at all to sexual receptiveness and I find it in some ways it is more sensitive." [2] What about the men who have to go through the bother of circumcision later in life and wish that their parents had chose to have it done on them earlier?A parrallel to spanishI'm going to parrallel circumcision with spanish. While there might be negative effects from knowing two languages, it's also highly beneficial in other areas.So would it be wrong for your parents to teach you both spanish and english as you grow up? No. Because it's overall beneficial.So, since I have proven that circumcision is overall more beneficial than not, it's perfectly acceptable to circumcise infants.Remember, my opponent has the burden. He must show that circumcision should never be performed on infants.He hasn't proven this, so the resolution remains negated.Thank you![1]http://www.circinfo.com...[2]http://www.circinfo.net...[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...