The Instigator
RonPaulConservative
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TomThePenguin
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Circumcision is genital mutilation:

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 400 times Debate No: 99513
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

RonPaulConservative

Pro

The resolution is that circumcision is mutilation/maiming, and should be prohibited except on consenting adults above the age of 18, or out of absolute medical necessity.
Genital mutilation:
"Any type of cutting or removal of all or some of the genital organs..." {1}
Circumcision:
"To remove the prepuce of (a male)." {2}

{1}. http://www.dictionary.com...
{2}. http://www.dictionary.com...


TomThePenguin

Con

First off, genital mutilation is traditionally set in the sense that it is meant to cause pain, meant to be a form of torture. It was used during the Rwandan Genocide, where soldiers would rape and mutilate the genitals of women. Female circumcision is still used today in countries for non-medical reasons, a practice rooted in gender inequality. However, in the case of male circumcision, it is a different discussion. While historically male circumcision was used ritually, it has been proven to have medical benefits. Studies conducted show that circumcised males are at a lesser risk of contracting HIV, penile cancer, and HPV.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
RonPaulConservative

Pro

The resolution of the debate was that circumcision is genital mutilation, and as has been shown in round 1, circumcision fits the definition of genital mutilation. This debate is not about the health benefits of circumcision (which, if I may add, are quackery), but regardless, the Muslims claim there are benefits to FGM. {1}

Circumcision removes healthy and normal male genital tissue which has 20,000 specialized nerve endings and accounts for half of a males erogenous tissue. As shown in round 1, this is the very definition of genital mutilation.

{1}. https://islamqa.info...
TomThePenguin

Con

This argument is impossible and one-sided unless you approach it from another angle. What I am stating is simply this; genital mutilation most freuquently refers to the process of abusing one's genitals for the very sake of torture. However, it does not fit into this criteria when used for medical purposes, as is the case with many circumcisions. Ergo, circumcision is beneficial, which contrasts directly to the whole idea of genital mutilation, a practice used worldwide to torture and humiliate.


https://en.wikipedia.org...

https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
RonPaulConservative

Pro

Circumcision is not done for medical reasons but, mostly, for religious or cultural reasons, aesthetic reasons, or hygienic reasons that are in actually nonsense.
These are the same reasons why FGM is done, though it was initially invented to control female sexuality, just as circumcision became popular in the US for the same purpose.
Parents should not be able to amputate healthy appendages off of their baby without absolute medical necessity, and the fact that this is legal to do to baby boys just because they were unfortunate enough to be born a male is sickening, and we must acknowledge the blatant misandry in our country, and the gross human rights violations being perpetrated against men through circumcision.
TomThePenguin

Con

The fact is this debate circles back to the whole concept of circumcision. While historically used for the reasons you outlined, in modern times it has been directly linked to many health issues. Circumcised men are less likely to contract HIV and penile cancer. Also, due to the universal inability to debate a direct dictionary definition, the heart of this issue lies with the necessity of it, because if circumcision is necessary for health reasons, then it cannot be classified as genital mutiliation, which is striclty abusive. And the fact remains that there is sound proof to support the medical reasons of circumcision.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 3
RonPaulConservative

Pro

My opponent seems to be arguing that circumcision has health benefits and therefore is not mutilations, as it is not harmful. However, this is just flat put absurd because circumcision still fits the definition of genital mutilation. What do you call the cutting of a persons genitals their consent and without medical necessity? Its called genital mutilation.

In regard to the health benefits of circumcision, there are none, and my opponent cites no credible source. And even if circumcision did have health benefits, it still wouldn't justify genital cutting.
TomThePenguin

Con

Circumcision procedures, which are up to the parents in the first place, are meant to medically assist in the majority of cases. In a way, it is a form of healing. It has been done for quite some time with proven medical benefits, and the new trend of denying science because of some outlier cases is an ignorance far too widespread. It relates to the trend of parents not getting their children proper vaccinations, because something can go wrong once in a million times. Circumcision is no longer an Abrahamic ritual. It is a medical removal procedure with proven health benefits. The maiming of an infant and the beneficial assistance to one are two completely different things. My opponent"s illogical understanding of a vague definition could be applied in many other areas. For example, with the definition he gave, mutilation is any removal of organs or flesh. In that case, should life-saving surgeries of appendixes and gallbladders be placed in the same box as the moral disagreement with proven helpful operations?

http://www.parenting.com...
Debate Round No. 4
RonPaulConservative

Pro

RESPONSE
Circumcision is not medical assistance, and it isn't a form of healing. Unless the baby has an actual medical problem where the foreskin has to be removed, you're just amputating healthy appendages off of your baby for no reason whatsoever- which is generally refered to as maiming.

Circumcision isn't to be compared to a 'life saving surgery,' because it isn't a goddamn life saving surgery- it's just genital cutting. If you need to be circumcised out of medical necessity, that is totaly different, but circumcision is generally done without medical necessity.

CONCLUSION
As per the definition provided in round 1, circumcision is genital mutilation. My opponent has tried to justify it by claiming that circumcision has health benefits, however, he is yet to prove any of these benefits, and has not yet shown how these benefits would justify forced genital cutting. Thus far I have seen him provide no differentiation between circumcision and Female Genital Mutilation, but has instead justified it in the same exact ways that Muslims justify FGM, which only supports the premise that this is in fact genital mutilation.
Common sense should dictate, that parents should not be le to amputate healthy apendages off of their baby for any reason save out of absolute medical necessity. As it is unacceptable to do this under any other circumstances, I see no reason why circumcision should be treated any different from mutilation.
TomThePenguin

Con

My ending conclusion is that cosmetical procedures on minors should be left to the parents. It is no different then the application of braces during adolescence for the same reason: cosmetic benefits with the possibilty of health benefits. It cannot be mutilation because the outcomes are only positive.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by RonPaulConservative 11 months ago
RonPaulConservative
Then accept the challenge.
Posted by Capitalistslave 11 months ago
Capitalistslave
This is literally a debate on semantics, isn't it? You arguing that circumcision is genital mutilation is like arguing that orange is red and yellow. There's no way to argue against that unless you make up a false definition for one of the terms.
No votes have been placed for this debate.