Circumcision without absolute medical necesity is genital mutilation and should be banned:

Right off the bat my opponent's response makes a number of false claims and petty excuses for genital mutilation. She says 'this mutilation is a healthy flick of the knife at an insignificant part of the body, not filleting someone's skin off and exposing their organs while they're still alive.' This is just flat out wrong for the following reasons:1. The foreskin is not an 'insignificant part of the body,' circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the male genitalia. {1}2. Circumcision does fillet someone's skin off, (foreskin) and expose their organs while they are still alive, (the glans, which were never supposed to be an external organ). Now that we have addressed her introduction, let's move on to the rest of her response. I. 'BUT THERE ARE HEALTH BENEFITS TO CIRCUMCISION!'This is less an argument and more a poor rationalization- and let me explain why. First of all, my opponent is trying to use this argument as a reason for why Male Genital Mutilation is somehow or another different from Female Genital Mutilation, and therefore the laws can protect women from this savagery, but leave men unprotected. However, Muslims claim that there are benefits to FGM, {2} and yet we do not permit this practise on account of these claims. Second of all, it is an after the fact rationalization. When circumcision was introduced into the US, it was not introduced for the purpose of achieving these 'health benefits,' you so talk about, it was introduced for the purpose of reducing sexual pleasure, and thereby discouraging masturbation. {3} This justification continued until about the early 2000's when people began questioning why they were circumcising in the first place- so these 'studies' came out to explain why this makes sense. I don't do after the fact rationalizations. Third of all, these so-called health benefits have been refuted numerous times. {4} In fact, the Royal Dutch Medical Association recently came out against the practise of MGM, and said: "There are no compelling health arguments in favor of circumcision, while it can have serious long-term urological, psychological and sexual consequences. And performing medically unwarranted circumcision of underage boys conflicts with good medical practice. Male infant circumcision conflicts with children’s rights and the doctors’ oath not to do harm." {5}II. 'CONSEQUENCES OF A REDUCTION IN CIRCUMCISION:'My opponent claims that reducing circumcision rates from100% to just 10% would cost 4.4 billion over a span of 10 years. Well let's do the math shall we folks? According to the CDC, 4 million babies wee born in the US in 2010. {6} Assuming half of those are male, and accounting for the same 10 year span my opponent is using. We are performing a total of 20 million circumcisions t save 4.4 Billion, whilst at the average cost of a child circumcision is 850$, {7} meaning that we are spending 17 Billion on circumcisions enable to save just 4.4 Billion. That is NOT cost effective, and actually means that we would spend less money on treating the 'diseases' caused by not mutilating your children than we would circumcising them- even assuming that these health benefits are legitimate, whilst they are not. III. 'WOMEN DON'T NEED TO GET CIRCUMCISED!'My opinion here is the same as is with the draft- no one should be drafted, but for so as long as men are subject to the draft, women should be subject to the draft as well. My opponent claims that FGM causes 'urinary tract infections' and 'problems having sex,' both of which are also true with MGM- circumcised men are 4.5 times as likely to suffer from ED. {8}{1}. http://www.livescience.com...{2}. https://islamqa.info...{3}. http://www.museumofquackery.com...{4}. https://www.psychologytoday.com...{5}. https://www.knmg.nl...{6}. https://www.nichd.nih.gov...{7}. http://health.costhelper.com...{8}. https://www.psychologytoday.com...