args

The Circumcision of minors without absolute medical necessity should be banned

My opponent claims that quote : "Female Genital Mutilation is objectively far worse than circumcision... Female circumcision can remove the pleasure from sex almost entirely for women for the entirety of their lives." How then is it any different? Circumcision destroys 75% of a males ability to feel pleasure, {1} this is most certainly the moral equivalent to Female Genital Mutilation. Further, he states that: "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.'" This is clearly false- removing half of a persons erogenous tissue as well as the fraenulum and the rigid band, THE most sensitive parts of the male genitalia, is obviously going to affect penile sensitivity. He continues and claims: "Female circumcision typically causes a host of health issues including..." No one doubted that FGM was horrible, but honest to the non-existent God, MGM has a number of horrible side effects as well- and actually shares the majority of these side effects. His second to last statement: "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)." Yes, I am well aware that the WHO holds a double standard in regards to Male and Female Genital Mutilation- with regards to this, they completely ignore the fact that Female Genital Mutilation also reduces the chances of HIV. {2} Either way, I don't see how this justifies anything- if you cut off your whole penis your chances of catching an STD would drop to 0, and it would cure any STD's you had prior, would this then make it morally legitimate to chop off males entire penises? After all, you can't get Genital Herpes without Genitals right? Finally, my opponent states: "Lastly, I would point out that the freedom to practice religion is enshrined in the Universal Deceleration of Human Rights (article 18). Infringing people's religious rights is a violation of one of the most fundamental and basic sets of morality governing all humankind." Religious freedom is necessarily limited to that which an individual decides to do with their own self- this in no way permits people to infringe others liberties in the practise of their religion. It was part of the Mayans religion to rip out their children's hearts, and yet this is banned, regardless of a persons religion. It is part of the Muslims religion to commit terrorist attacks, and yet this is illegal, without regard to the religion of the person committing them. The babies that this barbaric practise is being done to are not Jews or Muslims, they are Atheists- and so this practise is not permitted under the Freedom of Religion, but instead violates this right. Milton Friedman states: "We do not believe in the right of the parents to do whatever they will with their children- to beat them, murder them, or sell them into slavery. Children are responsible individuals in embryo. They have ultimate rights of heir own and are not simply the play-things of their parents." {3} {1}. https://www.avoiceformen.com... {2}. http://scholarworks.gsu.edu... {3}. "Free to Chose," by Milton and Rose Friedman, Chapter 1.