Parent-elective circumcision of offspring is ethically unacceptable

I'll start with rebuttals this time: Moral Nihilism Con has not provided any reason to believe moral nihilism is correct. But supposing it is correct and nothing is intrinsically moral, then it follows that our moral codes are socially constructed. I have no problem accepting this because it does not change the fact that, within the dominant moral paradigm of the medical community (the Hippocratic Oath), circumcision is unethical. Multiculturalism Our medical culture (this is what matters for this debate) is ruled by a pragmatic ethics, specifically the notion of not doing harm. If this paradigm is applied to the issue of circumcision, it becomes quite clear that infant circumcision is unethical, regardless of what other cultures believe. Other cultures think murder is ethical, but that does not mean doctors have the right to murder their patients. Medical Benefits If the medical benefits outweigh the risks, why doesn't a single major medical organization recommend routine infant circumcision? It is because the medical benefits are in fact far from clear. Con basically concedes this point by dropping the entirety of my case against the AAP. I'll say that again: Con has simply repeated what the AAP has concluded without addressing all the points I brought up against the AAP report. Sources 1. A general anesthesia poses serious health risks to newborns and should be administered. A local anesthesia also poses health risks, and moreover, it is not sufficient to mitigate the pain and trauma associated with circumcision. 2. My opponent has not challenged the facts: 40% of the men who are circumcised are unhappy with the result. They report decreased sexual satisfaction. My opponent says the majority of men are satisfied. The language in which my opponent frames the issue simplifies the facts and in doing so loses sight of the issue at stake. However my opponent wants to spin it, 40% of people who undergo circumcision will be unhappy. Why take the risk without the consent of the patient when there is a 40% chance that the procedure will produce unacceptable results? 3. My opponent does not address my third source. What he has cited seems fabricated, since it is not written in my source nor is it written in the source that my opponent directly cites under the label (1). 4. I am not sure what my opponent means when he says this study breaks fundamental rules of methodology. It took a group of circumcised men and uncircumcised men and compared their sex lives. It also took a group of men who had been uncircumcised and later were circumcised, and asked them about the change. The subjects and methods are explained very clearly in the study, and they make perfect sense. My opponent should expalin exactly what is wrong with the study. For the record, the study concluded: "We conclude that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in a significant number of men, possibly because of loss of nerve endings. In addition, ≈ 9% of the circumcised men reported severe scarring of their penises, and this population probably overlaps with those who reported insufficient skin resulting in uncomfortable erections, penile curvature from uneven skin loss, and pain and bleeding upon erection/manipulation." 5. My opponent does not provide any reason to doubt the accuracy of the study itself. Instead, my opponent simply points out that the authors believe further examination should be carried out. This is generally what most studies say, as it helps confirm their results. It is the rhetoric of academic studies, but it does not mean the study itself is any less trustworthy. 6. My opponent says nothing of this source. 7. The numbers are not exaggerated and the source does have references for the things it says. 9. The single case of penile excision refers to the specific trials done in the study. The study states: "In our case circumcision was performed by a specialist (although a nonurologist) with experience of more than 300 circumcisions." The point is, the circumcision was performed by a specialist and the penis had to be amputated. 10. The study discusses the long-term behavioral effects of pain on newborns. Circumcision is cited as one form of pain that can lead to these effects. The study is not directly about circumcision, although circumcision is discussed briefly. The point I'm making is that circumcision is painful, and if it is painful, then it leads to the adverse behavioral changes listed in this study. 11. Not recommending routine male circumcisions means the medical benefits of circumcision do not outweigh the risks. The only time circumcision can and should be performed is when a physician (not a parent) decides it is necessary to avoid further medical complications. The difference here has to do with who is deciding whether to circumcise - parents or physicians. Choice My opponent has still not addressed the argument I made regarding choice. This is now two rounds in a row that my opponent leaves this argument unaddressed. The argument was simple and I'll repeat it here again: a chile has a right to physical integrity which should not be infringed upon by their parents. Parent-elective circumcision infringes on a child's right to physical integrity by not giving them a choice in the matter. Undoing Circumcision My opponent cites the bible as evidence that circumcision can be undone. I would like evidence that it can be undone in our society, by our medical professionals, at the current moment in time. Truth is, our medical technology does not currently allow us to reverse a circumcision. FGM I am saying female genital mutilation is not any different than male genital mutilation: they both remove a large number of fine-touch neuroreceptors - in the case of the penis, it removes 30-50% of the tissue, and as such, these are both unethical practices. The fact that FGM is considered unethical should be a sign that MGM is also unethical. STDs My opponent drops my argument showing that circumcision does not prevent STDs. It should be noted that my opponent also drops my argument showing that circumcision is not a good form of preventative medicine. As I wrote in the previous round: "The overwhelming majority of males who are uncircumcised will not get any of the infections or diseases circumcision supposedly prevents. Therefore, circumcision would not give them any health benefit. The point here is that there is no reason to recommend anyone get a circumcision." Function of the Foreskin My opponent has not addressed my argument that the foreskin has a function. It "protects the penile head, enhances sexual pleasure, and facilitates intercourse. It violates medical ethics to cut off a natural, healthy, functioning body part." As such, parents have no right to surgically remove their infant's foreskin, as it is a healthy and functioning body part.