Parent-elective circumcision of offspring is ethically unacceptable

One of the most insidious and contentious debates alive today is that of whether parents have some fundamental right to irreversibly modify the bodies of their children according to their own desires, however they may be movated. It is often contentious, with deep animosity arising from contentions over religious freedom, and even deeper ties to the self image of those who wish they had not been circumcised.To clarify the resolution, my resolution is that circumcision elected by parents for their offspring outside of the offspring's control (usually though not necessarily in infancy) is unethical. For the purposes of this debate, I will be arguing against the ethical acceptability of all forms of such parentally imposed circumcision.Further, please pay special attention to the first and second rules of this debate. They are SPECIFICALLY for the purposes of preventing last-wordism and 8 rounds of back-and-forth. The exception to this is if a person's opponent makes an unsupported claim, the opponent may demand support from the previous post. If such a claim is declared suspect, it must be supported or the accusation will be accepted as uncontested. If such a claim is not declared suspicious, it will be accepted as uncontested. and they may not later return to it; no such unsupported claims may be made in round 5 by either party, though support may still be requested carrying over from round four to be presented in round 5.Rules: 1) First round is acceptance*, second round is argument, third round is rebuttal and additional supporting arguments, fourth round is pure rebuttal and final round is closing.2) Responses shall be directed towards the previous rounds(s) only.3) *CON may go first; if CON uses his first round for argument, PRO agrees his last round shall be a blank post, and for the purposes of voting and posting, rounds shall be offset by one post.4) No direct "vote pandering". An argument ought stand on its own, without appeals to emotion or ad hominem. The only place it may be acceptable to provide a proposed RFD is at the end of closing, and it must still be free of appeal to emotion, outright lies, or ad-hom attacks.5) No "sneaky ****erism". This is defined as making declarations to win or troll an argument rather than making an attempt to investigate whether a claim is actually valid or supported by reason. The winning argument here is to be determined as that argument which stands up to reason, not which argument/person people subjectively like more. In accepting, CON agrees that any votes which do not reflect an objective evaluation of the arguments (subjective votes) are invalid and to be ignored during final evaluation, retracted, or negated.6) No extension of argment character space or via gratuitous formatting liberties, except if mutually agreed upon.7) Shared BoP; all positive claims must be defended, and all arguments must be supported with reasons; this is a philosophical debate, and first principles must be mutually accepted if used as a basis of argument. Argument from authority, argument from tradition, and the naturalistic fallacy are all accepted as fallacies by CON.8) Shared participation is encouraged; while there can only be one formal "PRO" and one formal "CON", any independently supported argument may be advanced and picked up by the formal debators.9) First principles accepted in this debate must include that: "The universe exists"; "knowledge exists"; "all descriptive models have greater value than any non-descriptive model"; and that "equals OUGHT be treated equally".