The Instigator
gengo002
Pro (for)
The Contender
Nuevo
Con (against)

Forced circumcision of older minors practiced in many Asian, African and Muslim countries is a crime

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Nuevo has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/22/2017 Category: People
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 673 times Debate No: 99207
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

gengo002

Pro

In many Asian, African and Muslim countries (e.g. Philippines, Bangladesh, etc.), boys are circumcised in their childhood and not in infancy. Most of the boys are circumcised by illiterate traditional circumcisers making the procedure nothing but a physical damage & not a medical procedure. Most of the boys are circumcised forcibly against their will that is a human rights violation. In our opinion, this is a crime under existing law. So therefore there is no need to ban circumcision specifically and the parents and offenders of forced circumcision can be prosecuted under existing law if the victim files a case.

Physical integrity is a fundamental human right as guaranteed by law. For example, parents can legally get their child's foot cut off if there's any medical emergency to do so (e.g. the child's foot is totally damaged from a car accident and there are chances of developing fatal infections from the foot). But parents can't legally get their child's foot cut off so that the child can earn money begging. If the parents do so, they will be charged for physical damage crime under existing law.

Parents can legally get any part of their child's body cut off if there's any medical necessity to do so. For example, if a child girl developed serious infection in her earlobe following ear piercing that requires the earlobe to be surgically removed, parents can legally get the earlobe of the child cut off. But parents can't get earlobe of their healthy child cut off. If they do so, they will be charged for physical damage crime under existing law.

Since foreskin is not a birth defect and is a healthy, functional and highly specialized organ like an earlobe or any other body part, cutting off foreskin from a healthy boy for non medical reasons is a physical damage crime under existing law for obvious reasons.

The so called benefits are not an excuse for non medical circumcision. All of those medical conditions circumcision is thought to prevent are rare medical conditions. Decreasing the risks of some rare medical conditions isn't a huge benefit.
Let only a small percentage of boys will develop any of those medical conditions circumcision is thought to prevent. So if we circumcise random healthy boys only a small percentage of the boys will get the so called benefits of circumcision. So when we circumcise a random healthy boy chances are very slim that he will get any of the so called benefits of circumcision. But when we circumcise a random healthy boy, chances are 100% that he will get the harms of circumcision. For example, he will lose the functions of his prepuce or foreskin permanently (it's 100% sure). He will get his glans desensetized (it's 100% sure). He will lose 20000 nerve endings and a very sensitive part of his penis and an erogenous zone of his penis (it's 100% sure). He will lose the normal natural mechanism of intercourse, e.g. the gliding action or frequent movement of foreskin during intercourse (it's 100% sure). He will lose his frenulum, one of the most sensitive parts of the penis (frenulum is removed in 30% of circumcision on average, so it's 30% sure). Furthermore foreskin contains 20000 touch sensitive nerve endings. No other part in our body has so much nerve endings in so small area. Foreskin has the highest nerve density not only in the penis, but also in all over the human body. The clitories is on the 2nd place having 8000 nerve endings according to nerve density ranking. The entire human penis has 24000 nerve endings. Among them the glans has 4000 nerve endings and the foreskin has the rest of 20000 nerve endings. Foreskin is not a birth defect, it's not a vestigial or redundant skin. It's a highly specialized organ and an essential part of the penis in it's functions and importance like the eyelids are essential parts of eyes in it's functions and importance. Foreskin is a very sensitive part of human penis and is an erogenous zone of male genitals. Circumcision eliminates an erogenous zone of male genitals.

Circumcision can cause many complications including death as well. The rate of complications are 2% for infants and 6% for older boys. But I think there is no need to discuss about those complications. The harms of circumcision that will affect 100% of circumcised boys are great enough. The harms of circumcision (and not the risks or complications) outweigh any so called benefits of circumcision 100 to 1.

So, therefore, the so called benefits of circumcision is not an excuse for non medical circumcision.

Parents can save more boys from breast cancer than penile cancer by cutting of the boy's breasts (breast cancer in men is more common than penile cancer). Parents can save more girls from labia cancer than penile cancer by cutting off labia minora of their child girl (labia cancer is twice as common as penile cancer). Removal of labia minora can have some more benefits. For example, some girls have large labia that causes pain during intercourse and in those cases the girls have to undergo a surgical procedure called labiaplasty for labia minoa reduction or removal. Some girls may develop chronic irritation of labia minora from tight clothing, sports activity etc. Girls produce 10 times as much smegma as boys produce that gets trapped in the labia folds creating an warm and moist environment, an ideal environment for bacterial groth. So parents can save their girls from infections by cutting off labia minora from their child girls. Furthermore, since the smegma the girls produce gets trapped in the labia folds, cutting of labia minora will improve the genital hygiene of the girl.

The inside of the vagina is always warm and moist creating an ideal environment for bactetrial growth. So can parents legally cut off their child girl's birtholin gland so that the girl doesn't produce so much vaginal fluid and doesn't get an infection?

Can parents legally cut off appendix of their child so that the child doesn't develop appendicitis later in life.

Can parents legally pull 2nd molar teeth of their child so that the child doesn't develop dental cavities or tooth decay later in life? Pulling the 2nd molar teeth has potential benefits. You don't have to worry about oral hygiene or brushing teeth everyday. And you will be less likely to develop dental cavities or tooth decay.

Female circumcision has a potential medical benefit as well. It prevents HIV and all other STDs. Female circumcision is done in order to decrease the sexual desires of the girls and to control the girls. The most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs is sexual abstinence or refraining from sexual activity outside marriage or a monogamous relationship. Since female circumcision helps girls keep refraining from sexual activities, it's an effective way to prevent HIV and any other STDs.

Can the benefits mentioned above be seen as medical benefits? If not, how can the so called benefits of circumcision be seen as medical benefits? Does cutting off any body part (not only the foreskin), lets say an earlobe for non medical reasons meet the fundamental medical ethical principles?

Is foreskin the only body part that gets diseases or infections? Or do our other body parts get diseases or infections as well? Should we cut off other body parts as well to prevent diseases or infections? Why only foreskin? Do you think foreskin is a birth defect? Isn't foreskin a healthy functional organ? Please explain.

Finally there is no need to ban circumcision with any specific law. Circumcision for non medical reasons is already a criminal offence under existing law. In 2012, a German court ruled circumcision is a "bodily harm" and is a violation of fundamental human right to physical integrity, so, therefore is illegal under existing German law and ordered all future circumcisions for non medical reasons to be prevented in Germany.

The ruling by the district court of Cologne says circumcision "for the purpose of religious upbringing constitutes a violation of physical integrity".

The judgement added: "The child's body is permanently and irreparably changed by the circumcision. This change conflicts with the child's interest of later being able to make his own decision on his religious affiliation."

The court decided that circumcision was illegal but that the doctor couldn't have been expected to have known this. It had been done for so long that it seemed legal when - according to the court - it wasn't.

Reference: http://www.bbc.com...

Removal of or damage to any healthy functional organ or gland is a "Physical damage" crime under existing law. So it's not required to ban each and every physical damage crimes separately. For example, cutting off earlobe of a healthy child is not banned with any specific law. But no need to ban such crimes separately specifically. Cutting off earlobe of a healthy child is already a criminal offence under "Physical damage" law as it involves removal of or damage to a healthy functional organ or gland.

Similarly circumcision of healthy boys is a criminal offence under "Physical damage" law for obvious reasons since it involves removal of or damage to a healthy functional organ or gland considering foreskin a healthy functional and highly specialized organ and not a birth defect.

So therefore, there is no need to ban such "Physical damage" crimes separately with any specific law. Since there is no need to ban "cutting off earlobe" separately with any specific law, there is no need to ban circumcision separately with any specific law as well for same reason. Both of the crimes are "physical damage" crimes and a violation of the human right to physical integrity, a fundamental human right as guaranteed by law. Foreskin is a healthy functional and highly specialized organ like the earlobe and not a birth defect. So cutting off foreskin from a healthy boy is as serious crime as cutting off earlobe from a healthy child.

Should be continued in 2nd round
Nuevo

Con

Before I start, I'd like to give light to definitions for the readers and close the palpable gap my foe missed out. Any objections should be discussed in the comments.

Crime- an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government (Merriam-Webster)

Circumcision- a surgical removal of the foreskin from the human penis
(Wikipedia)

Organ- any part of the body that has function
(Merriam-Webster)

I'll be pointing my opponent's multifarious illogical, unsubstantiated, fallacious statements, offer my rebuttals, and, state my arguments. Clearly, my opponent hasn't sticked with the resolution, moving away from core ideas. However, Pro has stated harms circumcision entails. So, it would be my duty to refute them, however distant it is from the resolution.

Rebuttals #1
"Most of the boys are circumcised by illiterate traditional circumcisers making the procedure nothing but a physical damage & not a medical procedure."

This is a bare and baseless assertion. Everyone who wants to be circumcised go to doctors who are expertly knowledgeable and skillful in this craft and there are hospitals (I'll put YOUR EXAMPLES ON ALL CAPS :D) that cater this type of surgeries such as:
A. PHILIPPINES (All of the regions in Philippines: Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao)
1. Medico Global-Medical and Skincare Clinic
2. St. Luke's Medical Center
3.Cebu Doctor's University Hospital
4. Ricardo Limso Medical Center
5.Chong Hua Hospital

B. Muslim Areas (Uganda, BANGLADESH)
1. Kibuli Hospital
2. Apollo Hospitals Dhaka
3. Shish Hospital

C. AFRICA
1. McCord Hospital
2.Cosmetic Clinic

These hospitals have advanced, professional, skillful doctors that provide MEDICAL PROCEDURES to folks who want to be circumcised, and they're clearly far from ILLITERATE. I could surf the Internet for more hospitals that give professional and safe surgeries, but I think I made my point.

#2
"Most of the boys are circumcised forcibly against their will that is a human rights violation. In our opinion, this is a crime under existing law. "

Again, a bare assertion. This generalization of young boys coerced to the point of circumcision bears no cold, hard facts and evidences. Since they are at a young age, parents carry the burden of responsibility to cater for the welfare of their children. By putting their children under this type of surgery, they significantly prevent future ostracism, rejection, and humiliation from friends, family or society (which is in an African, Asian, Muslim setting) as it is an inherent societal norm, culture, and tradition

#3
"Circumcision can cause many complications including death as well. The rate of complications are 2% for infants and 6% for older boys."

This is a Wikipedia citation. Let me clear out what it really says.
"A 2010 review of literature found circumcisions performed by medical providers to have a typical complication rate of 1.5% for babies and 6% for older children, with few cases of severe complications."

1. 5% is very far from 2%. This is a palpable inflation of sources, a fabrication set to establish good points. Next time you cheat, don't get caught :)

#4
"Parents can legally get any part of their child's body cut off if there's any medical necessity to do so..... Since foreskin is not a birth defect and is a healthy, functional and highly specialized organ like an earlobe or any other body part, cutting off foreskin from a healthy boy for non medical reasons is a physical damage crime under existing law for obvious reasons."

Bearing logical and ostensibly LEGAL reasons for hygiene, beautification, and conformity, parents choose to have their children's hair cut. Since, hair is a HEALTHY, FUNCTIONAL, and SPECIALIZED ORGAN, with your framework, every parent should be abusing their children, and barbershops, salons, etc., should be culpable for this "abusive" acts and should be faced with lawsuits.

#5
"Can parents legally cut off appendix of their child so that the child doesn't develop appendicitis later in life.'

Clearly not. This is already a statement setting me up for another contention, prevention. I'll be using my foe's sources against him.
There are plausible explanations based on human biology for how circumcision can decrease the likelihood of female-to-male HIV transmission. The superficial skin layers of the penis contain Langerhans cells, which are targeted by HIV; removing the foreskin reduces the number of these cells. When an uncircumcised penis is erect during intercourse, any small tears on the inner surface of the foreskin come into direct contact with the vaginal walls, providing a pathway for transmission. When an uncircumcised penis is flaccid, the pocket between the inside of the foreskin and the head of the penis provides an environment conducive to pathogen survival; circumcision eliminates this pocket. Some experimental evidence has been provided to support these theories. [1] The WHO and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) state that male circumcision is an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention, but should be carried out by well-trained medical professionals and under conditions of informed consent (parents' consent for their infant boys).[2]

#6
"If we circumcise random healthy boys only a small percentage of the boys will get the so called benefits of circumcision...... He will lose the normal natural mechanism of intercourse, e.g. the gliding action or frequent movement of foreskin during intercourse (it's 100% sure). "

Yes, we can say you are 100% sure. But, are you 100% logically, empiricall, scientifically, statistically sure? Another 2013 systematic review found that the highest-quality studies reported no adverse effects of circumcision on sexual function, sensitivity, sensation or satisfaction.[3]

Central Contention:
Teenagers in these countries are forced to get circumcised, not solely by parents, but also by societal pressures, conformity, and prevention of future ostracism, rejection and humiliation. Circumcision characterizes a religious belief; a passage to adulthood. Even though parents wouldn't tell their children about getting circumcised anytime soon, time will come that society will force them to be curious, if not yet ready, about getting trimmed. If that time comes so, a child would swallow their saliva and get ready as they step inside the fragrant, white room, lie down, pull their pants, and close their eyes for lingering fingers to take place, thinking that after an hour or so they'll finally become a man.

My other points are clearly shown in refutations. I await your delicious rebuttal :)

[1] [2] [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
gengo002

Pro

4. I wrote, "Parents can legally get any part of their child's body cut off if there's any medical necessity to do so..... Since foreskin is not a birth defect and is a healthy, functional and highly specialized organ like an earlobe or any other body part, cutting off foreskin from a healthy boy for non medical reasons is a physical damage crime under existing law for obvious reasons."
You wrote, "Bearing logical and ostensibly LEGAL reasons for hygiene, beautification, and conformity, parents choose to have their children's hair cut. Since, hair is a HEALTHY, FUNCTIONAL, and SPECIALIZED ORGAN, with your framework, every parent should be abusing their children, and barbershops, salons, etc., should be culpable for this "abusive" acts and should be faced with lawsuits."

How can you even compare cutting off foreskin with cutting off hair? No offence. Hairs and nails grow up again after they are cut off. If a boy's hair or nails are cut off, the boy actually doesn't lose anything and it's not a form of "organ damage". But like all other organs, a foreskin can not grow up again once it's cut off. Cutting off a boy's foreskin forcibly without any medical necessity is a permanent and irreversible damage to the boy's healthy functional genital organ and is a "grievous hurt" crime, a crime as serious as cutting off a child's toe or a girl's clitoral hood (female prepuce) or labia minora under existing penal code.
What part of a child's body can the parents legally cut off? Can parents get their child's foot cut off so that the child can earn money begging? Can the parents cut off their child's earlobes, 5th toe, clitoral hood (female prepuce) or labia minora? The short answer is no. But why is this so? The reason is that physical integrity is a fundamental human right as guaranteed by law and parents are not legally authorized to cut off any part of their child's body (no matter what part and no matter the child is a boy or a girl) unless there's any medical necessity to do so.
Removal off or damage to any healthy functional organ or gland (no matter what organ or gland) is a "grievous hurt" crime under existing penal code. Since foreskin is a healthy, functional and highly specialized organ and not a birth defect, foreskin is not an exception here. Cutting off a child boy's foreskin forcibly without any medical necessity is a "grievous hurt" crime, a crime as serious as cutting off a child's toe or cutting off a girl's clitoral hood (female prepuce) or labia minora under existing penal code, since it permanently and irreversibly damages a healthy functional organ of a boy's genitals.

Forced circumcision has become so established in the society that no victim of forced circumcision is filing a lawsuit against his parents and the offenders. Most of the victims of forced circumcision appreciate their circumcision later in life and force "circumcision" on their sons as well creating a chain reaction of violence. This is why no parents have ever been jailed for forcibly circumcising their child. But does it mean that survivors of forced circumcisions are not victims of violence and criminal offence? Does it mean that forced circumcision is legal? The short answer is no. The offenders of forced circumcision aren't being prosecuted due to lack of lawsuit. For example, if a girl gets raped but doesn't report it to police, how will the offender(s) be prosecuted?

Now what will happen if a man files a lawsuit against his parents and the offenders for forcibly circumcising him in his childhood under existing law as his healthy functional organ has been damaged? Let's analyze.

Though almost no one is complaining about his forced circumcision, this doesn't mean that forced circumcision is not a crime.

For example, "forced marriage" of girls and women is another socially established crime in many pars of Africa, South Asia and throughout the world.

Percent of girls who were forced to marry before a certain age-
South Asia before the age of 18: 48%
Bangladesh before the age of 15: 27.3%
Africa before the age of 18: 42%
Niger before age of 15: 26%
Kyrgyzstan before age of 18: 21.2%
Kazakhstan before the age of 18: 14.4%

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

But "forced marriage" is so socially established that almost no girl or woman is filing a lawsuit against their parents for forcing her into an unwanted marriage. Most of the girls and women accept the marriage later in life and force "forced circumcision" on their daughters as well creating a chain reaction of violence. Almost no parents have ever been prosecuted for forcing their daughter into marriage.
http://www.independent.co.uk...
http://theconversation.com...
But does it mean that survivors of "forced marriage" are not victims of violence and criminal offence? Does it mean that "forced marriage" is legal? The short answer is no.

Forced breast ironing: Breast ironing is the pounding and massaging of a pubescent girl's breasts, using hard or heated objects, to try to make them stop developing or disappear. It is typically carried out by the girl's mother who will say she is trying to protect the girl from sexual harassment and rape, to prevent early pregnancy that would tarnish the family name, or to allow the girl to pursue education rather than be forced into early marriage. It is mostly practiced in parts of Cameroon, where boys and men may think that girls whose breasts have begun to grow are ready for sex. Some reports suggest that it has spread to the Cameroonian diaspora, for example to that in Britain.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
No one has ever been prosecuted for carrying out the practice.
http://www.theweek.co.uk...
http://europe.newsweek.com...
http://metro.co.uk...
The reason for this is same. No girl has ever filed a lawsuit against her mother for breast ironing. Most of the girls accept "breast ironing" later in life and force "breast ironing" on their daughters as well creating a chain reaction of violence. But does it mean that survivors of "forced breast ironing" are not victims of violence and criminal offence? Does it mean that "forced breast ironing" is legal? The short answer is no.

Forced female circumcision: Millions of girls have been become victims of female circumcision. But almost no parents have ever been prosecuted for forcibly circumcising their daughter.
http://www.passblue.com...
http://www.thejournal.ie...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...
The reason for this is same. Almost no girl files a lawsuit against her parents for forcibly circumcising her. Most of the girls appreciate it later in life and force "female circumcision" on their daughters as well creating a chain reaction of violence. Does it mean that survivors of "foced female circumcision" are not victims of violence and criminal offence? Does it mean that "forced female circumcision" is legal? The short answer is no.
The RINJ (Rape Is No Joke) Foundation adduces that female circumcision or female genital mutilation is a "sexual assault" crime and a "crime against humanity".
https://rinj.org...
According to RINJ Foundation, "female circumcision or female genital mutilation is a crime equal to or greater than rape in its violence and consequences."
https://rinj.org...

Child marriage: Millions of girls in many Asian and African countries and throughout the world are victims of child marriage. The countries with the highest observed rates of child marriages below the age of 18 are Niger, Chad, Mali, Bangladesh, Guinea and the Central African Republic, with a rate above 60%. Niger, Chad, Bangladesh, Mali and Ethiopia were the countries with child marriage rates greater than 20% below the age of 15, according to 2003-2009 surveys.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
But almost no parents are being convicted for forcing their child daughters into marriage. The reason is same. Almost no girl files a lawsuit against her parents for forcing her into an unwanted marriage in her childhood. Most of the girls accept the marriage later in life and force "child marriage" on her daughter as well creating a chain reaction of violence. Does it mean that the survivors of "child marriage" are not victims of violence and criminal offence? Does it mean that "child marriage" is legal? The short answer is no.

Forced prostitution: Millions of girls have been forced into prostitution in the brothels in Asian countries like India, Bangladesh, Japan, North Korea; in Middle Eastern countries like Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Iran and throughout the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Almost no girl or woman there in those brothels has entered this profession at her own wish. The girls and women were brought to the brothel, they were held in the brothel and were forced into prostitution. They were raped and tortured to become prostitutes. Now they have become prostitutes and they have no problem with prostitution anymore. Even when a new girl is brought in the brothel, they force the new girl to become prostitute, they torture the girl and get the girl raped instead of helping her to escape from there even if they themselves are victims of torture, rape and violence.
Even though the prostitutes in the brothels have no problem with prostitution now, does it mean that they are not victims of violence and crime?
Nuevo

Con

Clearing the vague

Since "force" here was not defined to have a human source and there was no objection to my contention, let this be the crux of my offensive; the force of society.

Societal Pressure

Circumcised boys virtually brag about their accomplished trimming. It elevates confidence and gives emotional security for it is part of the culture of masculinity. Boys will be curious about this type of surgical necessity, and even though it plants fear to their young minds, it all boils down to getting ready for circumcision. The whispers of society move the curious youth, and once parental imposition takes place, the gravity would be weightier. The child will temporarily cry and whine, refuse and retreat, but in their minds are planted seeds of visions of accomplishment, masculinity, and the ever-eternal bragging rights. Will this be illegal?

"Gross Negligence"

In an African, Asian, and Muslim setting, it is embedded to culture the need to be circumcised. This is a passage to manhood, a religious practice, which eventually turned to a modern-day necessity. Once parents do not force their child to be under this type of operation, they neglects their motherly-fatherly duty to protect their child from ostracism, rejection, and shame, as well as, forgetting to include their child to a culturally profound norm.

Global Opinion

It is utterly illogical to compare marriage and prostitution to circumcision. Although, they are inherently traditional, circumcision is a relatively massive practice today compared to forced marriage and prostitution as these two die out gradually in today"s world. These two, as seen by UN, a globally unifying organization, as violations of human rights. The WHO and UNAIDS, a global health organization and a brother institution of the former mentioned respectively, has spoken their concerns about circumcision, stating it as a medical necessity and a surgery that reduces the risks of HIV. The virus targets Langerhans cells which are located in the foreskin, circumcision reduces this risk.

FURTHER REBUTTALS

A. Pro questions how hair is compared to foreskin. By definition, they are both organs and they have specialized functions to the body. Pro also asks what parts of the human body can be legally cut by parents. Hair, nails, foreskin, if the child"s arm needs to be amputated for medical reasons, it is legal and highly medical to do so. If cutting the foreskin, a symbolism of adulthood, is that outrageous and illegal, piercing your daughters" ears should be too. In piercing, we cut holes in their earlobes so they can wear earrings as it is a global practice for women. But, will it be a form of physical hurt crime to pierce a child on the ears, knowing that after having this operation, weary for very little chances of complications, a child will be identified as a woman?

B. Pro also says that most mothers accept their circumcision and force it to their daughters. This statement is palpable and self-refuting.

Miscellaneous
Pro keeps on forgetting the medical necessities of circumcision and once tried to inflate his sourcing.. By the force of society, young children are gravitated to the idea of circumcision, making it far from illegal. Pro also concedes to the fact that circumcisions, later in life are accepted, thus refuting himself and giving me more build-up.
Debate Round No. 2
gengo002

Pro

You are talking about societal pressure for circumcision, societal and cultural significance of circumcision. You are talking about "why is circumcision done", you are talking about "whether parents should continue circumcising their sons or not".

But this debate is not about "why is circumcision done". And this debate is not about "whether parents should continue circumcising their sons or not".

The debate is about a legal issue. The debate is about "whether forced circumcision is a crime under existing law or not". The debate is about "though no person is filing a charge against his parents for forcibly circumcising him in his childhood, will the parents and offenders of a forced circumcision case be jailed under existing penal code if a person files a charge against his parents and the offenders for forcibly circumcising him in his childhood and proves in court that his parents and the offenders forcibly circumcised him?".

Forced circumcision, forced marriage, forced breast ironing, forced female circumcision, child marriage everything is done for social, religious and cultural reasons. But this social, cultural or religious significance will not make harmful traditions like "forced circumcision", "forced marriage", "forced breast ironing", "forced female circumcision", "child marriage" legal.

Even though almost no victim of "forced marriage", "forced breast ironing", "forced female circumcision", "child marriage" is filing a case against her parents and the offenders, what will happen if a girl/woman files a "forced marriage", "forced breast ironing", "forced female circumcision" or "child marriage" charge against her parents and the offenders? Will the court sentence in favour of the offenders as these are some socially established crimes and no victim files a case for these offences? The short answer is no.
Even though these are socially established crimes and almost no victim files a case against her parents and the offenders for committing these crimes, if a victim files a charge against her parents and the offenders for committing this crimes and can prove her claims in the court, her parents and the offenders will have to go to jail.

Similarly, law has granted parents the authority for medical care for their children. Law has not granted parents the authority to injure their children. Parents are legally authorized to consent to a medical procedure for their children that has an immediate medical necessity. For example, parents can even get their child"s foot cut off if the foot is severely damaged from an accident and there"s any medical necessity to cut off the foot. But parents cannot get their child"s foot cut off so that the child can earn money begging. If parents do so, it will be a "grievous hurt" (damage to healthy functional organ) crime under existing penal code.

Law has not given parents the authorization to commit a "grievous hurt" crime against their children.

Damaging anyone"s healthy functional organ is a "grievous hurt" crime under existing penal code regardless of the relationship of the offenders with the person and regardless of the age or gender of the person.
Parents cannot legally cut off any part of their child"s body. Parents can not cut off their child"s earlobes, toe, clitoral hood or labia minora. If parents cut off healthy functional organs like toe, clitoral hood (female prepuce - the skin that covers the clitoris), labia minora from their child"s body, it will be a "grievous hurt" crime. Since foreskin is a healthy functional and highly specialized organ and not a birth defect, foreskin is not an exception here.
So, therefore, cutting off someone"s foreskin is a "grievous hurt" (damaging functions of healthy functional organ) crime, a crime as serious as cutting off someone"s toe under existing penal code regardless of the relationship of the victim with the offenders.

If an adult man is forcibly circumcised, isn"t it a crime? The answer is yes. But what type of crime is it? It"s a "grievous hurt" crime since it involves removal of the victim"s healthy functional genital organ.

If a Hindu boy is forcibly circumcised by some Muslim men, isn"t it a crime? The answer is yes. But what type of crime is it? It"s a grievous hurt crime since it involves removal of the victim"s healthy functional organ.

Now if parents forcibly circumciose their older minor child, the case is not an exception since law has not given parents the authorization to commit a grievous hurt crime against their children, law has not given parents the authorization to injure their children, law has not given parents the authorization to cut off a body part of their children, law has not given parents the authorization to remove a "healthy functional organ" from their child"s body.

Parents can legally get their child"s foreskin cut off if there"s any medical necessity to do so. Not only foreskin, parents can get any body part such as a toe of their child cut off if there"s any medical necessity to do so.
But parents cannot legally get a healthy functional organ of their healthy child cut off without any medical necessity. Otherwise it will be an "organ damage" and will be a serious crime.
Foreskin is a healthy functional and highly specialized organ like toe and is not a birth defect. By legal definition, cutting off foreskin from a healthy child"s body without any medical necessity is no different than cutting off a toe from a healthy child"s body without any medical necessity regardless of the relationship of the offenders with the victim.
For example, by legal definition, if a Hindu boy is forcibly circumcised by some Muslim men, it"s a crime equivalent to "a Hindu boy got one of his toes forcibly cut off by Muslim men".
Since law has not given parents the authorization to cut off any healthy functional organ from their child"s body and foreskin is a healthy, functional and highly specialized organ like toe and not a birth defect, by legal definition, if a healthy child is forcibly circumcised by his parents without any medical necessity, it"s a crime equivalent to "a healthy child got one of his toes forcibly cut off by his parents without any medical necessity".

In fact if a child is forcibly circumcised by his parents, it"s an even more serious crime than "an adult is forcibly circumcised by someone else" since the child is in the legal custody of the parents and the offence amounts to "violence against children" and "custodial violence".

If a person commits a crime against someone who is in his/her legal custody, the crime is referred as "custodial violence" in criminal law and the punishment for these crimes are more severe. For example, if a prison guard commits a crime against a prisoner, it"s a custodial violence and is a serious form of crime. And penalty for this crime will be comparatively severe as well.

Also law specially protects the women and children who are unable to defend themselves. There are special laws for the protection of women and children only.
If a crime is committed against a child, it"s considered a more serious crime in criminal law and punishment for this crime is more severe.

Forced circumcision also violates the convention of the rights of the child. Law should protect children from all harmful traditions under the "convention of the rights of the child". So countries who are members of "convention of the rights of the child" should consider "forced circumcision of older minor boys" a more serious form of crime and should consider more severe punishment for the offenders.

So, therefore, if parents forcibly circumcise their healthy child without any medical necessity, it"s a "grievous hurt" (damage to healthy functional organ) crime under existing penal code, no matter how established circumcision is in the society.

Though almost no victim of forced circumcision is filing a lawsuit against his parents and the offenders, if a victim of forced circumcision files lawsuit against his parents and the offenders and can prove his claims in the court, the parents and the offenders have to go to jail under existing penal code.

The reason I am debating on this legal issue here is that my Muslim parents forcibly circumcised me when I was 11 without any medical necessity. I was circumcised by an illiterate traditional circumciser. I am 19 now and am going to file a court case against my parents and the offenders.

I have definitely a case here as my parents have no right to do this with me.
Furthermore, since I am circumcised by a traditional circumciser, my parents cannot claim the offence a medical procedure. Since they cannot claim it a medical procedure, I can claim it a "grievous hurt" and an "organ damage" for obvious reasons.
Most of the boys in our country (Bangladesh) are still circumcised by illiterate traditional circumcisers. Many boys in many Asian and African countries and in countries like Philippines are circumcised by illiterate traditional circumcisers.
Here"s the references: https://www.hindawi.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...(rite)
http://www.filipinosabroad.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Here"s some videos of forced circumcision performed by illiterate traditional circumcisers:
Asian video: https://www.youtube.com...
African video: https://www.youtube.com...

From these videos, you will be able to understand exactly what happened to me.

Possibly I am going to the first boy to get the parents and the offenders jailed in a forced circumcision case. But I am not the only boy who regret their forced circumcision. Once I get my parents and the offenders jailed for forcibly circumcising me, other victims of forced circumcision will be encouraged to file court cases against their parents and the offenders for forcibly circumcising them in their childhood.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Nuevo 11 months ago
Nuevo
Hey, circumcision-boy! I forgot to post. Hahahaha. You would lose either way :) mwaaaa
Posted by Nuevo 11 months ago
Nuevo
An unexpected error occured after writing my central contention. There should be a wrap-up sentence that I originally wrote which is: Society in itself forces children to go under circumcision, and you can never count it as crime. I apologize for the lacking cohesion.
Posted by Nuevo 11 months ago
Nuevo
I think I'll go on with rebuttals. I'm busy this week.
Posted by Nuevo 11 months ago
Nuevo
I accept. I'll be posting my opening statement. My rebuttals will be in round 2. How many rounds are we debating this, Mr. Emotional Butterfly? :)
Posted by gengo002 12 months ago
gengo002
I am mainly talking about Muslim boys who have been forcibly circumcised in their childhood or teenage for religious reasons. The reason is that I myself is a victim of forced circumcision. I was born in a Muslim family and my parents forcibly circumcised me for religious reasons when I was 11 as I refused to cooperate. I am severely traumatized and still fear to see a knife. Now I have decided to do something about it. I am going to be the 1st boy to file a court case against parents and the offenders for a forced circumcision case. If some Muslim men forcibly circumcise a Hindu boy, it's a crime. If an adult man is forcibly circumcised, it's a crime. Offenders of these crimes should be prosecuted under "physical damage" law. Similarly, forced circumcision of an older minor boy is a "physical damage" crime under existing law for the same reason and parents are no authority to commit a "physical damage" crime against their children. If parents do so, it should be an even more serious crime than a forced circumcision of an adult since it involves not only "physical damage" crime but also "violence against women and children" crime and "custodial violence" crime.

My motive is to get my parents and the offenders jailed for 10+ years (and not just sued) for "physical damage" and "violence" they have done.

I think my motive is not baseless and I hope to win the case. Though the law is not yet enforced against circumcision in practice, circumcision is already illegal according to the written law. So, therefore, there is no need to criminalize circumcision with any specific law and my parents and all the offenders can be prosecuted under existing law if I file a charge against them.

Example:

In 2012, a German court ruled circumcision is a "physical damage" crime.

The court decided that circumcision was illegal but that the doctor couldn't have been expected to have known this. It had been done for so long that it seemed legal when - according to the court
Posted by gengo002 12 months ago
gengo002
You wrote, "Unfortunately it is not a crime, by law, in the countries where circumcision is legal."

It's just a baseless statement. How do you know that cutting off foreskin is legal when cutting off any body part (no matter what part) is a criminal offence under existing law? Doesn't foreskin qualify as a healthy functional organ? Is it just a birth defect? What do you think? What's the base of your claim? Can you explain it?

You also wrote, "Well, by definition it is not a crime to circumsise a newborn in america"

What definition? Where have you found that cutting off foreskin is not a crime in America when cutting off any body part is a criminal offence under existing American law? What's the base of your claim?

Circumcision is already a criminal offence under existing law. So if a victim of forced circumcision file a charge against his parents and the offenders the parents and all the offenders can be jailed (and not just sued) under existing law for "physical damage" crime. The same goes for forced circumcision case of an adult man. If the victim files a case against the offenders, the offenders can be jailed under "physical damage" crime. So it's a "physical damage" crime and parents are no authority to commit a "physical damage" crime against their child. And in case of a forced circumcision authorized by parents, it's an even more serious crime than forced circumcision of an adult since it involves "violence against children" and "custodial violence" and the crime is committed against someone who is physically helpless, unable to defend and is in the custody of the offenders. The law protects women and children specifically who are physically helpless and are unable to defend. So a forced circumcision of an older minor boy is not only a "physical damage" crime, but also a "violence against women and children" crime and "custodial violence" crime as well under existing law.
Posted by gengo002 12 months ago
gengo002
You have not answered any of my questions. The comments you have been posting are irrelevant to my questions. There is no logic and no explanation in your comments. You are just posting some random comments as you like.

Can you answer some of my questions-
1. Is it a crime for parents to cut off their child's earlobes forcibly without any medical necessity? Why? If parents do so and if it's a crime, under what law will they be prosecuted?
2. Is it a crime for parents to cut off any other healthy functional organ, gland or body part of their child (no matter what part) forcibly without any medical necessity? Why? If parents do so and if it's a crime, under what law will they be prosecuted?
3. Is it a crime for parents to cut off their child's foreskin forcibly without any medical necessity? Why?
If you think it's not a crime under existing law, can you let me know what are the other body parts parents can legally cut off from their child's body? Do you think it's only the foreskin? If so, why do you think so and where have you found that cutting off this specific body part should be legal when cutting off any body part (no matter what part) is illegal? Do you think cutting off foreskin is different than cutting off any other body part? If you think so why do you think so? Do you think foreskin is not qualified as a healthy functional organ? Do you think foreskin is a birth defect. I need your explanation here. And if cutting off foreskin is not a crime, cutting off the rest of the penile skin remaining on the penile shaft should not be a crime as well (since the foreskin and rest of the penile skin are parts of a single penile skin set). Do you think it's also legal for parents to cut off the rest of the penile skin remaining on the penile shaft of their child? If not why not? And where have you found that cutting off this specific body part is legal when cutting off any body part is illegal under existing law? What's the base of your random explanationless cl
Posted by Odotellessa 12 months ago
Odotellessa
Well, by definition it is not a crime to circumsise a newborn in america, like it is not a crime to chop off
an arm of a thief he or she used to steal an object under sharia law.. so that ends there.
Should these both be something law does not permit, yes, definitely.
But what are we going to do about that?
Posted by Odotellessa 12 months ago
Odotellessa
Unfortunately it is not a crime, by law, in the countries where circumcision is legal..
debate over.

As you said, should it be a crime, yes, it should.
Something that can not be changed that easily, not that we don't have bigger issues in those countries.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.