The Instigator
AltoInferno
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
G3PF
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Justification for neonatal male circumcision

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 1/27/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 627 times Debate No: 99371
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

AltoInferno

Con

Hello, and to whoever may be my contender and peers for this debate, welcome.

To start this off, I am a circumcised male who believes that the routine circumcision of infants, for non therapeutic or non religions reasons (though I would argue against those reasons as well, but that is for another debate), is not medically justified, and violates both the circumcised individuals freedom of choice, and the doctor's "do no harm" Hippocratic Oath.

A sample of the reasoning and justifications for circumcision that I have observed are as follows:
-It will keep the male cleaner
-It will prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and various other STDs
-It looks better to the sexual partner
-it fixes the condition known as "Phimosis" or the inability for the foreskin to retract.

I understand that these are not the only justifications for circumcision. However, I would be hard pressed to predict every single reason that I will be arguing against. While the natural human body is, obviously, uncircumcised, the burden of proof should fall on the Pro standpoint, to prove that circumcision is justified and not detrimental in ways that outweigh the supposed benefits. However, since the rate of circumcision in the United States is higher than the rate of leaving males intact, It seems that the burden of proof will be equally shared.

I have posted this question in the Society category, because circumcision seems to be a cultural issue. Many countries have already debunked routine infant circumcision as medically unjustified (1) and some countries have put bans on circumcision (2). This leads me to conclude that there is more to the practice than the purely medical standpoint, otherwise most developed countries would have a similar opinion on the matter.

I ask that my opposition first state the positive points for circumcision that they are familiar with or are going to be using, so that my reply may be precise and to the core matter.

Sources:
1. http://www.cps.ca...
2. http://www.bbc.com...
G3PF

Pro

Hi. I'll be arguing in favor of neonatal male circumcision.

My points regarding why I am in favor of it are as follows:

-It decreases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. [1] [2] [3] [5]
-It reduces risk of penile cancer [1] [5] [3] and reduces risk of cervical cancer in females in which the circumcised male has sexual intercourse with. [1]
-The risk of urinary tract infections are lowered. [1] [3] [5]
-It prevents balanitis and balanoposthitis, two disorders that result in gland inflammation. [1]
-It also prevents phimosis and paraphimosis, two disorders that result in the inability to retract the foreskin [1] [3]
-It also allows for slightly better penile hygiene. [3]

As for the risks, they tend to vary, but they're fairly low, and I'd argue a decent chunk are minimal. Plus, most of the risks are fairly short-term. These risks include pain, bleeding, infection, gland irritation, risk of injury to the penis (such as the foreskin being cut too short or too long, failing to heal properly, or the remaining foreskin attaching to the penis [4]), and what is arguably most significant, an increased risk of meatitis, inflammation of the penis's opening.[1]

Something that's also worth noting is that the American Association of Pediatrics, as well as The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists feel that the benefits of neonatal male circumcision outweigh the risks. [5]

Good luck! :)

[1] http://www.webmd.com...
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[3] http://www.mayoclinic.org...
[4] http://www.mayoclinic.org...
[5] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...
Debate Round No. 1
AltoInferno

Con

Here are the main reasons that I am against circumcision:
-Circumcision leads to decreased sexual pleasure and sexual dysfunction
-Why circumcision started, and the puritanical history of circumcision in the United States
-The violation of human rights, and the implications associated with bodily modification without consent
-Agendas by the medical and industrial sectors influencing the continuation of the practice
-effects of traumatic procedures on the adolescent brain, contradictions within the medical establishment, and the dangers associated with circumcision

There are many reasons for the loss of sensitivity after being circumcised.
One reason is due to the loss of tissue surface area. Removing erogenous tissue, nerve endings, and sexually protective coverings reduces sexual sensitivity; it also leads to a decrease in sexual pleasure for both partners [1,2,3] and can lead to problems, such as erectile dysfunction [4,5].The foreskin is a section of the shaft skin, and creates sexual response nerve impulses. It also acts to let signal from other nerves further down the line pass through. It should be expected that subtracting a large amount of these nerve cells, as well as severing the natural impulse pathways from the remaining ones, would reduce the amount of total nerve impulse created and ultimately received by the brain.
The second reason falls on the build up of keratin (the same compound that makes up fingernails) on the glans head, and the inner foreskin. Both normally protected by an inner environment of moisture, they become constantly exposed to the dryness of the outside conditions, as well as the abrasion of clothing. To compensate for this, the glans and other exposed parts build a layer of keratin to be protected from damage and painful sensations. This, of course, means that the erogenous nerves that create sexual sensation are buried under additional layers, requiring more stimulation to achieve the same response.

The second point is how circumcision started in the United States. One of the main advocates of circumcision, John Harvey Kellogg believed that many ailments, including syphilis, were caused by masturbation. He recommended circumcision to be the treatment, due to it"s lowering of sexual sensitivity and association of sexual pleasure with pain, since the procedure was to be done without anesthesia [6, PP. 294-296]. He also argued that a clitorectomy or clitoral acid application was a suitable female treatment. The male practice caught on; the female versions did not.

The next point is of the human right"s applications. By law in the United States, it is illegal to discriminate protections and opportunities based on sex. While medically necessary procedures are usually performed on infants without being viewed through the human rights filter, medically unnecessary procedures are. Male genital modification is considered acceptable for parents to request of their child, while female genital modification isn"t acceptable. As we see with the issue of abortion, both sides have human rights factors in mind. I am not going to delve into which side is right; I am only going to borrow the implications.
-The view that abortion is not acceptable argues that making a decision on the part of the child"s body before it can consent is unconstitutional.
-The view that abortion is acceptable due to the rights of the mother to make decision on her own body also, by extension, has the rights of the child in mind. Once the child is delivered, it is no longer part of the mother, and just like the mother, no outside power has the right to make decisions on it"s body.
How far do we take the right"s of the parents to modify their child"s body? Do we let them do whatever they believe should be done, while not protecting the child, or should we offer the child protection from bodily intrusion without medical necessity, until it can decide for itself?

Circumcision is a huge industry, costing around $1,000 on average through different age groups as well as different methods of anesthesia [7] sometimes costing more than Lasik eye surgery [8]. This makes hospitals and individual doctors very significant amounts of money. With such high amounts of profits to be made, skepticism in the analysis of research and proposed benefits is very necessary. Not only this, but circumcised men use the largest portion of the world"s produced Viagra, and significantly higher amounts of lubricant [5,9]. Combined with the industry of hospitals selling amputated foreskins for cosmetic products [10,11] there is a very large, profit system behind the continuation of circumcision.

The AAP, which you cited, has not always justified circumcision, ex. 1999-2002. They have also come out with a statement recently stating that painful procedures on infants should be avoided due to the lasting, negative effects of pain on the developing infant brain [12,13,14] this, naturally, applies to circumcision. In infants, anesthesia is not used routinely, and even when it is used, it"s effectiveness on infants has not been proven, and has come into severe question [15,16,17] this being the case, it seems the AAP is not heeding their own advice.
Dangers of circumcision are not limited to temporary conditions. Complications can and do occur during and after the surgery. Conditions such as clotting, uncontrolled hemorrhaging, systemic shock, and infection occur. When too much shaft skin is removed, or when it is removed improperly, latent complications such as abnormal penile torsion. Some cases of complication led to partial or even full amputation of the penis [18,19,20]. Unfortunately, around a hundred infant deaths occur each year due to complications resulting from circumcision [21,22]
Considering the harms and risks have equal statistical probability to the conditions circumcision is claimed to prevent, and the fact that each condition has an effective modern treatment alternative (proper hygiene/antibiotics for infections, light stretching/topical ointment for phimosis, and proper sexual education/ condoms for STD transmission) circumcision, a procedure created thousands of years ago as a sacrificial religious practice, cannot still be considered a reasonable procedure to put hundreds of thousand of infants through. To systematically surgically modify hundreds of thousands of infants to prevent what may or may not happen to a couple hundred men is not right.

Sources:
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
2. http://www.circinfo.org...
3. http://www.nocirc.org...
4.http://www.academia.edu...
5. http://www.thewholenetwork.org...
6. https://www.archive.org...
7.http://health.costhelper.com...
8. http://www.lasik.com...
9. http://canadafreepress.com...
10. https://sites.google.com...
11. https://www.scientificamerican.com...
12.https://www.aap.org...
13. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...
14. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...
15. http://www.cnn.com...
16. http://www.circinfo.net...
17.https://www.psychologytoday.com...
18. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
19. http://www.cirp.org...
20. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
21. http://www.circinfo.org...
22. http://www.icgi.org...
G3PF

Pro

In regards to your first point, I'll first take a look at your sources. The first two I call into question ( as well as the circinfo.org website, as it appears to be biased), as it doesn't appear to provide an adequate number of circumcised men to form a proper conclusion. Instead, it rushes to one based on anecdotes from 310 circumcised men without suggesting further research, and nor does it suggest that the authors did any sort of analysis on the brain's reception to pleasure before and after circumcision in comparison to the uncircumcised men. As for the third source, while it doesn't appear to be as flawed as the first 2, it does bring me to my counters about how this information may all be false. The field of circumcision is hotly debated, and some do consider the need for more research. But, the general consensus among studies - and metastudies - seems to be that circumcision does not reduce sexual pleasure nor does it negatively effect sexual function. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Your second argument is fallacious, as it relies on the genetic fallacy in order to provide a counterargument. [5]

As for your third point, I would simply argue that, if a procedure is medically beneficial, then I would say they do have a right to infringe upon the child's rights. Otherwise, they would be subjecting their child to medical risks, which I'm sure many would agree is a morally worse decision. Furthermore, parents do have rights over their children and what they can and cannot do, including medical procedures. Thus, I would say it is not a human rights issue.

While I do find your fourth point fair, I also find it generally irrelevant if there are medical benefits to circumcision. Furthermore, as it is not a requirement (the AAP agrees it shouldn't be [6]), I would say this conclusion isn't particularly valid, as while they do make some profit off of it, it not being required indicates evidence against it being a money-making scheme, as if it were one it would likely be mandatory. Also, furthermore, I find the conclusions that circumcised men use more Viagra to be baseless, as neither source you've provided showcases substantial evidence for that claim.

The AAP can easily change their minds if the evidence leads them that way, for one. For another, according to your sources, they seem to advise against routine pain, which contradicts circumcision, which is a one time thing. However, Source #14 of yours does go into more specifics about infant pain as a whole, and how it should try to be minimized, so I will grant you that. However, we can easily use pain treatment such as anesthesia, or other local anesthetic methods that source #19 of yours seems to suggest. But, you seem to argue against anesthetics' effectiveness on children. Thus, I'll first take a look at your sources supporting this. Your 15th source, a CNN article from 1997, provides no link to the studies at hand nor direct quotes, and furthermore it actually argues in favor of anesthetics, saying they should be provided before the circumcision. Source #16 of yours also recommends (albeit local) anesthesia, as well as circumcision ~90 minutes after being born, among various other methods. Source #17 of yours references a study [7] that actually does report in favor of treatment methods and anesthesia that the aforementioned source of yours is against. The effects the writer of Source #17 of yours noted were only observed in groups that were either untreated or only had a placebo. The study also advocated for other treatment methods being used as well, and also called for further studies of active pain relief. The most you could say is that it says "None of the studied interventions completely eliminated the pain response to circumcision," however given that the various methods discussed within your sources seem to reduce the pain, it can be inferred (based on Source #14 of yours) that the infant pain rates, even with anesthesia, are far less severe than without it, and are not permanently damaging. Thus, contrary to your conclusion, the AAP is in fact heeding their own advice, and anesthesia, among other pain treatment forms, should be used.

Now, as for your final claim that various conditions can occur, you are correct, however you fail to state that these conditions are rare, as Source #18 of yours seems to state. Furthermore, Source #19 of yours seems to discuss another rare case (which can be treated, by the way) and Source #20 states "In summary, multiple complications can occur after circumcision, ranging from the insignificant to the tragic. Virtually all of these complications are preventable with only a modicum of care. Unfortunately, most such complications occur at the hands of inexperienced operators who are neither urologists nor surgeons." So, since these complications are mostly due to inexperienced operators, and almost all can be treated, I would say addressing this is a moot point. As for the deaths, while those sources are correct in that infants can die from circumcision (not 100% sure about the numbers your source provides, though) they are incredibly rare, as the sources imply, and, in fact, they are so rare that they are reported as case reports. [8, 9] This isn't even mentioning how they're potentially preventable as well, as they seem mostly due to poor medical care. [9] Now, let's compare this to deaths potentially prevented by circumcision. For cervical cancer, 4,217 women have died from it in 2013. [10] For penile cancer, ~130 men have died from it in the UK in 2014. [11] Untreated urinary tract infections can lead to sepsis. Sepsis caused by urinary tract issues is referred to as urosepsis. Urosepsis accounts for 9 - 31% of all sepsis cases and has a death rate of 20 - 40%. [12] Even accounting for the lower end of both of these scales, as well as the lower end of the annual death rate [13], that still accounts for 3,024 deaths annually from urosepsis. This isn't even accounting for the potential STD-related deaths it could prevent, nor is it accounting for hospitalization or infection of the diseases it prevents. Thus, since circumcision can potentially prevent thousands of more deaths than are caused by it (which are largely due to improper medical treatment), it is definitely something that is far more beneficial to get than it is not to get.

Thus, contrary to your conclusion, circumcision is actually largely beneficial with the ability to potentially prevent thousands of deaths (even if we calculate at the lower end for provided statistics), with only rare complications, of which most are largely preventable (including the deaths). Thus, if anything, the procedures for circumcision should be improved upon rather than thrown out of the window, given the health benefits they provide.

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
2. http://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com...(16)30268-3/abstract
3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
4. http://www.jsm.jsexmed.org...(15)30172-7/abstract
5. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
6. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...
7. https://www.nichd.nih.gov...
8. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...
9. https://www.hindawi.com...
10. https://www.cdc.gov...
11. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org...
12. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
13. https://www.cdc.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
AltoInferno

Con

Assuming that sensitivity in the remaining erogenous regions is left unchanged, there is still the issue of removing erogenous tissue. To make an analogy, when a finger is removed from a hand, perhaps the remaining fingers keep the amount of sensitivity that they had before the amputation, while the sensation from the removed finger is no longer present. As with circumcision, the maximum nerve stimulation potential is reduced by the sheer number of nerve cells able to generate a nerve signal. The sensitivity issue, therefore, relies on the argument that the remaining cells are unaffected, and that the lowered nerve potential does not affect pleasure. This, in itself, is very hard to qualify. No two people feel amounts of pleasure quite the same, so to compare pleasure between a circumcised man and an uncircumcised man, the study has to be very well controlled and funded, something that the studies provided fail to be.
No institution that has gone past the barrier of willingly performing sexually harmful procedures would initiate a self defeating study. In the sexual pleasure studies you cited, there are many uncontrolled variables to consider. In those studies, there is no mention of men who have restored their foreskin, either surgically or by gradual stretching, or men who have used glans covers or dekeratinization methods. This is a very noticeable gap in data, as it eliminates median data that could provide clues at so the resulting sexual sensitivity ratings or otherwise.

If you understood the definition of the genetic fallacy, you would understand why my argument isn"t made fallaciously. The genetic fallacy occurs when a conclusion is made based solely on the lineage of the tradition or development in question. The portion of my argument where I point to the beginnings of circumcision in the United States is important to consider when analyzing the current reasoning behind the practice. However, it is not the exclusive reason that I oppose circumcision, nor is it the reason that I concluded that circumcision is not justified. Drawing attention to the lineage of the item in question can illuminate why the issue has evolved to its present form. While the history of circumcision isn"t valid to draw a conclusion from per se, in the context of being among other reasons, it stands as a perfectly acceptable piece of evidence to my complete argument.

Coming to your next counter, the fact that female genital modification is illegal in the U.S., even with specific parental request for their own reasons, reveals that it is, absolutely, a matter of human rights. Stating that parents can do the things they can do, and can"t do the things they can"t, is not a way to validate the decisions that they can make on behalf of their consentless infant. In many African nations, parents have the rights to mutilate their female child"s genitals. It doesn"t make it right that they can, since we in the U.S. and most of the world view that as wrong, so saying that they"re right because they "can" is not an acceptable way to address that.

To Address your counter to the profitability portion, Instead of examining it by saying that if it were exclusively a profit scheme, it would be mandatory, let"s look at this through a different perspective: if it weren"t for profit, it wouldn"t be performed. Countries that use more socialist healthcare systems are usually more concerned with the overall populous health, since it costs the government money to keep taking care of chronic conditions in its population. No country that uses a universal healthcare system covers circumcision under the available insurance, even considering the supposed benefits. It is interesting to see that circumcision for profit is uniquely American, a nation that prioritizes profit in the health sector. The only real exception is in the Philippines. Even there, circumcision is performed fairly regularly, many times for free at schools, and is performed for social reasons (1). This would indicate that the practice of for profit circumcision for medical reasons is a uniquely American phenomenon.
Requiring circumcision to be legally mandatory is a very poor basis for the definition of a financial scheme. Seldom, if ever, has a non government instituted financial scheme made its way into united states law. "Snake oil" was never considered for legal obligation, even with the proofs for its benefits at the time, nor were any of the great ponzi schemes in U.S. history ever considered for legislation. Even vaccinations, one of the largest industries in our nation, have not been voted into legal obligation. Big pharmaceuticals make nearly twice the net profit margin of big oil at its peak, and nearly five times its lowest (2). Even these medical giants have yet to have their products voted into legal obligation. With circumcision being so widely accepted in our nation, there would be no reason for Hospitals to go the extra mile to make circumcision mandatory. The amount of time and money spent on lobbying to have circumcision passed into law, and somehow get it ruled as constitutional through the supreme court, would be too sizable to be considered worth it for the industry. Even passing it privately in hospitals as a condition to having a child in them would take away the human rights and the decision from both the parents and the child; this would be outlawed extremely quickly, and the hospitals would be targeted by the supreme court. Either route would be extremely costly and painstaking to undergo. Adding to that the extra notoriety from the media about how hospitals would be trying to pass a procedure as mandatory, either through legislation or privately, would draw attention to the legitimacy of the practice. Needless to say, if it were a scheme for profit, that would be the last thing the medical industry would want.

The medical benefits of circumcision are significantly overstated. For penile/cervical cancer, the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) is the cause of these cancers, not the foreskin itself (3). It"s very odd that this particular proposed benefit is always filed separately than the STD rate. As with the sensitivity argument, no medical association that profits from circumcision is going to provide evidence to the contrary. Most of the sources that you cited for medical benefits came from data outside the U.S., and cannot be compared directly to STD or medical risk factors in America. I invite you to read a short abstract of some of the problems faced when using the data from circumcision studies (4).Factors such as living conditions, sexual partners, factors that led to voluntary or involuntary circumcision, abstinence period after circumcision, condom use, and many other important ones need to be accounted for. A study from the International Journal of STDs and AIDS stated that intact men were more likely to use condoms than circumcised ones (5). There has been no study published that proves circumcision does anything except delay STD transmission in men, since no study has come through with the full circumcised sample follow up after a reasonable follow up period.
Hopefully this has been informative and thought provoking. Initiating this debate and sustaining it from the con side is difficult, particularly because of the bias in the medical field publishing data that may be contaminated by personal or funding bias, but nonetheless I hope I was able to provide a stimulating (no pun intended) experience.
Thanks for a good debate!
Sources:
1.http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
2. http://www.bbc.com...
3. https://www.cancer.gov...
4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
5. http://www.intactamerica.org...
G3PF

Pro

You bring up an interesting point regarding sexual pleasure and its difficulty to be detected. As you've stated, no two people feel amounts of pleasure quite the same, thus it is subjective. This can't help but bring into question things such as bias or personal preference as well, as various studies have shown that circumcised penises are generally preferred for sexual intercourse, and that some people actually reported greater pleasure for circumcised penises rather than uncircumcised, while for others, there seemed to be no change. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Also, I can't help but call into question the variables you mention. The first thing, regarding men who restore their foreskin, is for reasons listed above; bias. After all, if they do receive foreskin restoration, then they prefer the idea of an uncircumcised penis, meaning the pleasure received may not be in regards to whether or not there is a foreskin, but whether the male prefers to have one. I also can't help but wonder why you reference men who used dekeratinization methods, for both reasons listed above as well as fact that, as far as I'm aware, it isn't something that occurs in all men who do get circumcised, thus it's a very different factor that warrants study on its own merit, rather than in combination with circumcision as a whole.

I would argue that you did infact use a fallacious argument. For one, just because it isn't the exclusive justification for your argument does not mean that justification can't be fallacious. Furthermore, I fail to see how the history of it is at all relevant to the practice of it today, as it does not provide any substantial argument against it beyond stating how it used to be bad instead of saying how it still is. Not to mention how you never presented it as any support for any arguments of yours whatsoever, but instead used it as a stand-alone argument. Recall how you established it as one of your main arguments against circumcision.

You are correct in that parents do not have a right to do the things they do is not in of itself justifiable reasoning for them doing this practice. I should have expanded upon it to state that they should have a right to make decisions over their child if it is potentially medically beneficial, but not medically necessary.

Firstly, I just want to point out that dailymail is not a reputable source to establish the conclusion about the Philippines. This does not mean the information is incorrect, however I just wanted to point out the fact that the news website is not a solid one to use to justify your position. Now, to counteract your point about socialist health care countries not doing circumcision I find that you provided no proof of this, and rather, according to Wikipedia, numerous countries in which there are prevalent members of their society who are circumcised also seem to have universal health care. [6, 7] Now, I am aware that countries with universal health care may not cover circumcision under said health care, however unless evidence is provided of your claim, I see no reason to assume circumcision isn't covered under this health care.

You provide a fair point about it being mandatory and the costs that would come for that. However, I would argue that it is still irrelevant if evidence shows that circumcision is beneficial, and thus far the evidence does seem to.

The medical benefits are not at all overstated, as you claim, as I specifically stated "potentially preventable," which listed all the deaths caused by various things that could have been potentially prevented by circumcision (this includes HPV, which you also list). Now, you also bring up the fact that pro-circ people/institutions likely wouldn't release information that would economically damage them, however you fail to take into account the validity of these studies, as if they do still prove to be beneficial in spite of what the motivation of the authors may be, then there is no reason to disregard this. Otherwise, it would be again using the genetic fallacy. Also, I'll bring up a few more sources showing that circumcision does in fact prevent STDs and other medical issues, since you provided skepticism regarding the studies conducted in foreign countries. [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14] Some of these sources also referenced protective HIV benefits from receiving neonatal circumcision, showing evidence against you saying that 'no study has come through with the full circumcised sample follow up after a reasonable follow up period.' Now, beyond that, as for your source discussing necessary factors, I first call it's validity into question, given how it comes from an anti-circumcision site. However, disregarding that fact for now, it only pointed out a few potential flaws it claimed were unaccounted for in the studies from Africa, and some of the examples you listed that claim it should be accounted for, such as 'factors that led to voluntary or involuntary circumcision' aren't particularly relevant. Others, such as sexual partners or where those being studies live, have been accounted for in various studies. It is worth noting that for homosexual sex, no substantial benefits have been noted.

This certainly was a great discussion, and I admit I also had trouble as well, as there's an abundance of claims being made without providing evidence or discussing what studies have done. At this point, too, I wasn't able to substantially read through my sources to check for the factors that you have listed due to a lack of time, haha. Either way, it was an enjoyable experience. Thank you as well!


[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[8] https://www.ghdonline.org...

[9] http://www.scirp.org...

[10] https://ijhpr.biomedcentral.com...

[11] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[12] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[13] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[14] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by AltoInferno 1 year ago
AltoInferno
If you are referring to my argument with your statement about claims being thrown around, you need to understand your place in the argument. For a modification to a natural state, any change requires justification. In this case, circumcision started without proper justification, and thus, should be proven to be the correct procedure, rather than disproven as beneficial. It is not up to the defense of leaving babies intact to prove that leaving them intact is best; it falls upon the circumcision advocate to make their claim, as well as to prove that circumcision is justified and beneficial.
Posted by G3PF 1 year ago
G3PF
Apologies, I had thought that the links would've worked better in the comments. Here's shortened URLs of them:

#2: goo.gl/VxuRJ5

#4: goo.gl/qz07YU
Posted by G3PF 1 year ago
G3PF
I only just now noticed that sources #2 and #4 of mine weren't placed properly. Thus, here they are:

#2: http://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com...(16)30268-3/abstract

#4: http://www.jsm.jsexmed.org...(15)30172-7/abstract
Posted by G3PF 1 year ago
G3PF
@GlenB The medical sources I've listed seem to disagree, and rather they state that there's genuinely good reasoning for circumcision.
Posted by GlenB 1 year ago
GlenB
I'm sorry pro, but male circumcision is almost solely done on the basis of it being a traditional/cultural thing. It was just invented by disgusting ancient societies to stop masturbation. That's it :(
No votes have been placed for this debate.