args

The Circumcision of minors without absolute medical necessity should be banned

To answer point by point "In response to my opponents argument- though some forms of Genital alterations on women are legal, all forms of body altering procedures are prohibited to be preformed on minors." Wrong and shown to be incorrect by your own sources. This unevidenced statement which contradicts your own sources and is backed up by no proof adds nothing to your argument due to already having been proven incorrect in the last round. I mean even if you hadn't already disproven your argument this fails to pass a common sense review. You think all body altering procedures are prohibited on minors? You've never seen a 15 year old with earrings? Male Circumcision is not a minor cosmetic procedure, instead, it refers to the removal of a specialized part of the male genitals, the most sensitive part as a matter of fact. The equivalent would be to cut out a girls clitoris, which is illegal, and a blatant violation of bodily autonomy. This is both ignorant and offensive. It is ignorant because cutting off a girl's clitoris would be the equivalent to removing the penis glands (the head of the penis) not the foreskin. The clitoris glans and penis glans are homologous meaning they form from the same embryological precursor [1]. Indeed, due to the two sharing a common purpose, function and design it should seem obvious they are linked. It is offensive because female genital mutliation is objectively far worse than circumcision. Female circumcision can remove the pleasure from sex almost entirely for women for the entirety of their lives [2]. Meanwhile peer reviewed scientific studies have found that when you compare circumcised men to non-circumcised men "Penile sensitivity did not differ across circumcision status for any stimulus type or penile site." [3]. Female circumcision typically causes a host of health issues including [2] constant pain repeated infections, which can lead to infertility bleeding, cysts and abcesses problems passing urine or incontinence depression, flashbacks and self-harm problems during labour and childbirth, which can be life-threatening for mother and baby Meanwhile Male circumcision gives health benefits. The World Health Organisation for instance points out that "Male circumcision is one of the oldest and most common surgical procedures worldwide, and is undertaken for many reasons: religious, cultural, social and medical. There is conclusive evidence from observational data and three randomized controlled trials that circumcised men have a significantly lower risk of becoming infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)." [4] There is no negative effects known for circumcision itself, only for medical negligence in performing surgical procedures which is something that applies to every type of surgery and even then is tiny with a peer reviewed scientigic study finding that "benefits exceed risks by at least 100 to 1" and suggests that "When considered together with ethical and human rights arguments, neonatal circumcision should logically be strongly supported and encouraged as an important evidence-based intervention akin to childhood vaccination". [5] This is based on an extensive review of the literature and studies to date. To compare the two as if they were the same is to misuse and demean the suffering of women who have suffered genital mutilation which in no way comapres to circumcision. If you think male circumcision should be banned then you should argue based on the issues with male circumcision itself, now with inappropriate comparisons. Lastly, I would point out that the freedom to practice religion is enshirned in the Universal Decleration of Human Rights (article 18). Infringing people's religious rights is a violation of one of the most fundamental and basic sets of morality governming all humankind. [6] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.nhs.uk... [3] https://tinyurl.com... [4] http://www.who.int... [5] http://www.sciencedirect.com... [6] http://www.un.org...