The circumcision of a minor without medical neccessity should be banned.

There will be two parts to my argument, a polemic attacking my opponent’s premises and a positive defending circumcision. But firstly, on a personal note, I would like to correct you by assuring you that I am not ‘engaging in’ the practice of circumcision. I am not circumcised, only defending circumcision. ************************************************************************************************************* The Polemic Part It does not follow from the definition of a secular government that they must ‘preserve the liberties of their citizens’. A secular government as defined is one which is not theoretic, meaning that is doesn’t depend on religious doctrine for a justification of its laws and actions. Officially secular governments have in fact done the opposite of you contend not only in the USSR and Mao’s China (both secular, though exploiting population credulity) but also in the USA with the racial subjectification of the black population amongst other racial groups. During these periods, the government in constitutional law never ceased to be secular. Therefore, you must add qualifications that means that if a government is officially secular, then ought to defend civil liberties. The two do no follow. Here are some other assumptions that I have identified in your argument necessitating defence: Assumption 2: Circumcision is a harm (which I will deal with in 5a) Assumption 3: we have a right to our Bodily Autonomy from the moment of birthFriedman’s belief claiming that a child has personhood as an ‘embryo’ was clearly meant to be an anti-abortion remark. Is this assumption right? Or, rather, is the child fully dependent on parental autonomy to make their decision for them? Parents have to decide on all sorts of health-based questions for their children over what vaccinations they should have, whether to breast feed, whether or not to have the child circumcised, all which have health consequences. Children aren’t responsible because they aren’t free to independently make decisions under normative rationality; until full autonomy is developed, this right must belong to the parents. Even young children need to be disciplined because they cannot make certain decisions for themselves. ‘Opponents of circumcision recommend that any decision about male circumcision be deferred until age 18 years. This deferral would allow the male to participate in the decision making process. However, many of the health benefits that can be achieved by circumcision are lost if the procedure is deferred to age 18 years.’ (Brady: 260) This applies to your contention that I would be opposed to my own personal and forced circumcision. I would argue that I am different from a child in that I have developed autonomy and the ability to defend myself in accordance with the values I hold. You must argue that a good parent is one in which a child’s circumcision is deferred until they have developed as autonomous human beings. ‘A total prohibition of circumcision appears to be unjustified because it would deprive parents of the possibility of providing their children with a protection (although not total) against various diseases. Moreover, a total prohibition might create a ‘black market’, so that a focus on harm reduction could be a more advisable focus' (Haniz: 511) Assumption 4: Lockean philosophy Let’s deconstruct what Locke actually writes in the quote you gave. He says that: ‘there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection...’. But, are all humans of equal natural advantage and faculty? No, they are not, and thereby under Lockean accounts should not be treated equality. Humans share a common humanity but this manifests into an abundance of non-arbitrary inequalities. Your claim to universal equality is like saying that all games should be played according to the same rules: have you ever tried using the snake & ladder rules to win a game of chess? Thus, universal human equality is not Locke's position. Here of some examples of exceptions to Lockean equality:4a. Unequal natural advantage: those born with natural talents, beauty, good genetics...4b. Unequal faculty: the physically or mentally disabled, the ill, those without autonomy (which raises the issues in A3, again) ... To this we may add other differences in mankind that aren’t, as you claim, of an ‘arbitrary discrimination’. Man’s experiences and environment, his upbringing and wealth to name a few. It is okay to discriminate against certain groups positively; it is right that we discriminate artists as needing of more paintbrushes than the average citizen. Artists as a group pragmatically need more paintbrushes. This is common sense, not immorality. So, it falls to me to argue that circumcision is practiced as a form of positive discrimination, which I will do shortly. The only rights Locke claims we all have, right to life, liberty and property also needs to be defended: why do we have these rights? Where do these rights come from? ‘Because we’re human’—what about our humanity necessitates that we have these rights? Defend them, do not assert them. Your reference to Islam I find disconcerting, appealing to the widespread Islamophobia in our world right now. And, what’s more, it is a complete slippery slope argument. Just because I say that child circumcision should be permitted, by no way means I suddenly condone ISIS or other like extremist religious factions. Dare I say, if ISIS only applied their laws to their own children (as Jews apply their laws only to their own children) there would be much less of an issue; it is the desire for external Jihad, for converting others to one’s beliefs, that western powers fight against. Jews only apply circumcision, a practice which doesn’t belong to the class of terrorist actions, to members of their own race and religion according to their doctrine and tradition. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now for the positive part of my argument: 5 Positive Discrimination 5a Medical: Circumcision is more of a benefit than it is a harm The AAP and CDC both agree that the benefits of circumcision outweigh its harms (Brady, 2016: 258). Whilst some children might be negatively affected by the procedure, on whole the reduction of urinary tract infections, STIs, penal cancer, phimosis positively contribute to the wellbeing of circumcised individuals and save hospitals resources later on in treating these aliments. Thereby it could be said a good use of parental agency to protect their children against these problems. Since we are debating about the USA, I will cite USA statistics: ‘Circumcision is a surgical procedure that does have some risks in both the immediate post-surgical period, as well as later. Complications seen in industrialized nations such as the United States and the United Kingdom occur in about 1 in 500 or more infants who are circumcised in the newborn period. The most common complication is bleeding. This occurs more commonly in children who have an underlying bleeding disorder. In more than 60% of children who have bleeding following circumcision, the bleeding can be stopped just by applying pressure.’ (Brady, 2016). But what about that 1 in 500? Well according to Krill et al (2011) there are solutions to manage circumcisions and any complications that may arise from them in a safe and relatively easy way. I’m running out of space so I must leave research on this part of the debate to you. 5b Legal Additionally, as you are an American and as I understand take the secular constitution quite seriously, let me recount the first amendment to you that the Founding Fathers executed, in part, to prevent their own religious persecution: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ https://www.law.cornell.edu... The more witty of us, might interpret this as the allowance of some laws Congress pass to be disrespectful of religion, but this certainly was not the Founding Father’s intention. It was the separation of state from religion. Jewish circumcision anyway belongs to the establishment of religious Judaism. In Genesis 17: 9-14. ‘Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.’ To attack this established religious practice, would be to disrespect the 1st amendment. If you accept this, you must also accept that the secular constitution of America is wrong. With a “powerful cultural value” for many groups including Jews (Jacobs & Arora, 2015), legal support, numerically few adverse cases and a positive health benefit, surely an outright illegalisation of therapeutic circumcision is absurd. No characters left to expand. Over to you TheMarketL— Sources: Brady M. Newborn Male Circumcision with Parental Consent, as Stated in the AAP Circumcision Policy Statement, Is Both Legal and Ethical. Journal Of Law, Medicine & Ethics [serial online]. Summer2016 2016;44(2):256-262. Available from: CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Ipswich, MA. Accessed May 5, 2017. Hainz T. The Enhancement of Children versus Circumcision: A Case of Double Moral Standards?. Bioethics [serial online]. September 2015;29(7):507-515. Jacobs A, Arora K. Ritual Male Infant Circumcision and Human Rights. American Journal Of Bioethics [serial online]. February 2015;15(2):30-39. Available from: CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Ipswich, MA. Accessed May 5, 2017. Krill et al. (2011) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... The Torah: http://www.bbc.co.uk...