Circumcision Should be Criminalized

Supposed Medical Benefits The bacterial infections that are alleged to be the result of keeping ones foreskin (such as balanoposthistis) can be prevented by proper hygiene and treated by antibiotics[0]. Phimoses and paraphimoses are uncommon condition that can be prevented by proper maintenance and treated by modern medicine[1][2]. If an uncircumcised man makes the decision to have a circumcision instead of using a condoms to prevent the contraction of an STD, it's completely within his right to do so. But even if this weren't a terrible idea, there is no reason the circumcision must be done before a consenting age - babies don't have sex. Regarding the 1 in 600 chance of uncircumcised man developing penile cancer - there is some considerable disagreement about this figure in the medical community. The Royal Australian College of Physicians states: "In developed countries penile cancer is a relatively rare disease, with an incidence of approximately 1 in 100,000. The absence of randomized controlled trial evidence, combined with the rarity of penile cancer, suggests that circumcision is not justified for the sole purpose of protecting against penile cancer"[3] I think it's worth reflecting on the bizarre logic that proponents of circumcision use when making these medical claims. Consider that 1 in 8 U. S. women will develop breast cancer sometime in their life. This is much higher than the dubious claim that 1 in 600 man will develop penile cancer if left intact. What's stopping us from forcibly and violently remove the breast tissue of little girls to prevent their developing breast? We could saves the lives of around 39,000 women each year in the U. S. alone. The logic of circumcision is that fewer body parts results in fewer problems. Well, that may be true. But, as I stated in R1, a baby has an internationally recognized legal right to their body parts; they own them. The NOCIRC citation Con called me out on stated that no national or international medical association recommends routine circumcision. Though Con brought in to question the motivation of the organization's claim (an appeal to motive), he did not negate the claim. The scientific consensus is that circumcision is unnecessary despite the misleadingly vivid list of medical issues that a fringe falsely attributes to an intact penis. A Pain Free Circumcision? A report by the University of Alberta in Edmonton found that 96 percent of the babies in the United States and Canada receive no anesthesia when they are circumcised[4]. There are three reasons for this: 1: There is a belief that infants feel little or no pain from the procedure[4] (This is false as I demonstrated in R1) 2: Anesthesia is seen as being as painful as circumcision[4] 3: The infants don't remember the procedure[4] However, the reality is that to have your son circumcised is to celebrate the day of his birth with a 10 minute session of pure torture. What a way to greet your beloved child on his day of birth. The video I added in this round shows a baby being circumcised after being anesthetized. Clearly the anesthetic does little; the intensity of the screaming is nearly indistiguishable from the first video. Religious Freedom Religious people have the freedom to think anything they want about the appropriateness of child abuse. However, in a modern, secular society, laws are in place to guarantee the rights of children against their religious "caregivers". Christian Scientists can't withhold medical care from their children[5], physicians are permitted to intervene when Jehovah Witnesses try to deny blood transfusions to their children[6] and Muslims aren't allowed to butcher their daughters' genitalia[7]. Clearly the notion that the religious have a right to saw of their children's genitalia is inconsistent with the law's of modern, Western democracies and it isn't consistent with Western moral norms either (unless we want to say that causing the needless suffering of infants is a moral norm). With 96 percent of doctors performing circumcision without anesthetics, a world of pain free circumcision is simply a fantasy. But were it true, circumcision is still the robbing of a child's body part which, as I said in R1, violates the The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, The U. S. Constitution (and presumably other constitutions), and The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. It also "conflicts with the child's interest of later being able to make his own decision on his religious affiliation. ", as the German court mentioned early found[8]. Parents Responsibility My opponent points out that parents have a responsibility to act in the best interests of their children. I claim this as a point for my side. Parents must to be held liable for not fullfilling this responsibility. [0] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[1] . http://menshealth.about.com...[2] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[3] . http://www.cancer.org.au... [4] . http://www.cnn.com...[5] . http://www.theatlantic.com...[6] en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions#Bloodless_surgery [7] . http://www.fgmnetwork.org... [8] . http://www.bbc.co.uk...http://www.youtube.com...