The Instigator
KaleBevilacqua
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
dawndawndawndawn
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Ethics of circumcision

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 4 votes the winner is...
KaleBevilacqua
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 933 times Debate No: 42917
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

KaleBevilacqua

Con

I take the stance that the routine male genital mutilation of infants is unethical. Pro will argue that circumcision is ethical. This will be a simple debate with a tight character limit and short argument time. Please accept as soon as you can.
dawndawndawndawn

Pro

Q #1 How many penises did you examine to come up with this statement?
Q #2 Are you a man who is circumcised?
( Please forgive the -very- personal nature of the question. I would not ask except for the subject matter's jist. )
Q #3 If you are a man and you are "snipped", does your penis hurt all the time?
Q #4 Does it hurt some of the time
Q #5 Does it hurt only during urination?
Q #6 Do you achieve turgidity?
Q #7 Do you achieve ejaculation?
Q #8 Do you know why the practice was invented?
Debate Round No. 1
KaleBevilacqua

Con

Those questions are irrelevant. I am not a circumcised male. To the last question, the origination of male circumcision is not known with certainty.

But here is why I am against it:

Premise 1 - Medical Reasons:
There is no medical reason for it. No professional medical association in the United States or the rest of the world recommends routine neonatal circumcision. The American Medical Association calls it "non-therapeutic." At no time in its 75 years has the American Academy of Pediatrics ever recommended infant circumcision. The foreskin is not a defect; it protects the penis from urine, feces, and irritation, and keeps contaminants from entering the urinary tract. The foreskin also has an important role in sexual pleasure, due to its specialized, erogenous nerve endings and its natural gliding and lubricating functions. Thus, removing the foreskin is no more justified than removing a finger or any other healthy body part. As for the common belief that circumcision reduces the risk of STIs, Intact America reports that "most men in the United States are circumcised, but our STD rates are as high as or higher than those in countries where circumcision is rare."

Premise 2 - Cruelty:
Circumcision is a painful, unnecessary (see previous premise), irreversible surgery that an infant does not consent to have performed. According to Intact America, "In the United States, girls of all ages are protected by federal and state laws from forced genital surgery, whether practiced in medical or non-medical settings, and regardless of the religious or cultural preferences of their parents. There is no ethical rationale for distinguishing between female and male genital alteration. If it is wrong to remove part of a baby girl's healthy genitals, then it is wrong to do the same to those of a baby boy." I wholeheartedly agree. It is also often performed without an anesthetic, inflicting serious pain.

Thanks for debating!

Sources:
http://www.intactamerica.org...;
dawndawndawndawn

Pro

Your profile says that you're a 14-year-old female.

Is this true?
Debate Round No. 2
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
missmedic, THANK YOU! good point!
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
No one said anything about female circumcision. They only think it happens to men. Talk about unethical. Go to the W.H.O. web site and look up FGM.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
I have a lot to say on this subject but, be clear, it is HIGHLY unlikely that any of this should be discussed with ANYONE who is under-age.
If a person who is over the age of 18 or 21 would like to start a debate, I would be happy to share my information
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Kale, I'm going to type this slowly. I am 54. It is MOST LIKELY
that I should discuss NOTHING of a penis-nature with ANYone who is under-age.

Now, read the above sentence again.

Do you see that it has NOTHING to do with your second round what so ever?
Posted by KaleBevilacqua 3 years ago
KaleBevilacqua
Whaaa? I used a source in the second round!
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
I am 54. Since penises are used for sex, sometimes, I am pretty sure that it is not good for me to discuss this with you any further
Posted by KaleBevilacqua 3 years ago
KaleBevilacqua
Well, it's not sexual. This is purely from a standpoint of ethics.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
I ask questions because discussing genitalia with people who are under-age is, highly questionable
Posted by Caploxion 3 years ago
Caploxion
What a waste of time. Pro just spat irrelevant questions and tried to undermine Con with round-a-bout Ad hominem. This wasn't even a debate as Con was the only one arguing.
Posted by KaleBevilacqua 3 years ago
KaleBevilacqua
@dawndawndawn, last round - No, I'm actually 13. But DDO foolishly wouldn't allow "November 13 2000" as a valid birthdate last time I tried.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
birdlandmemories
KaleBevilacquadawndawndawndawnTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided an actual argument, had a source to back up her arguments, and didn't harass her opponent with off topic questions.
Vote Placed by Raisor 3 years ago
Raisor
KaleBevilacquadawndawndawndawnTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Only Con provided an actual argument.
Vote Placed by AndrewB686 3 years ago
AndrewB686
KaleBevilacquadawndawndawndawnTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I hoped for a stronger debate. Pro, who cares how old she is? That is an irrelevant piece of information that should not impede participation in the debate that YOU accepted. Con made a decent argument and pro never attempted to refute it. Con at least used a source and had the decency to TRY and debate as opposed to asking nonsensical questions and focusing on the individual instead of the resolution. Ad hominem in its most bizarre form.
Vote Placed by wateva232 3 years ago
wateva232
KaleBevilacquadawndawndawndawnTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: There was no debate really. Pro only asked questions and in the last round, he asked another question that does not has anything to do with the debate. I was hoping for a better debate than this but this debate was really lacking big time and Con was the only one who tried to make an argument. Conduct goes to Con since (s)he is the only one who made an argument. S&G is tied. Con is the only one who made arguments, so convincing arguments goes to Con. Reliable sources is a tie since both lacked sources.