args

The Circumcision of minors without absolute medical necessity should be banned

I am happy to accept Pro's definitions. Rebuttal To summarise Pro's argument, the way the USA government handles Female Genitam Mutilation should be expanded and made to apply to both sexes. If we do this, circumcision (as a form of genital mutilation) should supposedly be banned. Now there are a lot of holes I could poke in this such as: - Why should the USA's government's laws be the ones we look at. I am not part of the USA and neither is most of the world. - Why are the female genitals considered the baseline that male genitals revert to, why not vice versa? Why not treat female genitals like make ones? - Why are we treating different genitals that have different health risks from different procedures as if they are the same thing and a violation of the 14th amendment? However I don't need to because based on his own definition and sources, Pro has conceded the point. His third source, and the only one that isn't a basic dictionary definition, does not support what he says. The USA actually only bans certain kinds of female genital mutilation, nameley: "circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris"[1] So although it outlaws some actions performed on some part of the vulva, some sections of the vulva like the mons pubis, bulb of vestibule, vulval vestibule, etc are not covered by this law as they are not part of the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris[2] and some actions are fine even when performed on those sections, like a small surgical cut to the labia which causes no lasting damge or even scars. That last example is not a technicality I've invented, but a specific and practiced form of gental alteration which fit's Pro's definition of mutilation ("Any type of cutting or removal of all or some of the genital organs") and is actually advocated by academics as a method which can meet religion and cultural criteria without leaving lasting damage to the child and reduce the number of people who pursue the harmful and long-term damaging types of genital mutilation. [3] All of which still meets Pro's definition of genital mutilation. So in actuality, what the USA does is regulate female genital mutilation. As with all kinds of things - from weapons to food - it allows some kinds and bans others. If we therefore follow Pro's argument and use the USA's treatment of FGM as our basis, then circumcision should be legal. It falls under the type of "mutilation" that is legal on females as one that has no common long term health risks. As Pro has conceded the argument, I don't feel the need to make a positive argument of my own at this stage. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://jme.bmj.com...