The Instigator
NotThatClever
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
JustRushdi
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Male child circumcision is as immoral as female child circumcision

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
NotThatClever
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/2/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 498 times Debate No: 79291
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

NotThatClever

Pro

1st round is acceptance.
2nd round is positional argument.
3rd round is rebuttal.
4th round is statement in conclusion.

Definitions:
1. Circumcision shall mean the surgical removal of all or part of the clitoris and surgical removal of all or part of the foreskin for reasons other than medical necessity.

2. Morality shall refer to social morality. The same morality that has outlawed female circumcision in the United States of America. Distinct from personal morality.

3. Child shall mean all persons whom are under the age of legal consent. Because age of consent may vary from State to State, we will use the lowest age of consent in the USA; 16 years of age.

This is my first debate and I look forward to it. Thank you.
JustRushdi

Con

I ACCEPT THIS DEBATE! As someone who was been circumcised at the age of 10... I ACCEPT! :) :) :)
Debate Round No. 1
NotThatClever

Pro

I thank you JustRushdi for accepting this debate.

My position:
All elective child circumcision is immoral.

Foundation:
1. Both acts are done on children.
2. Both acts are done without proper consent from the person the act is performed on.
3. Both acts remove parts of genital anatomy.
4. Both are acts of force perpetrated on an individual incapable of self defense.

Point 1) Female circumcision is outlawed in the US. It is seen as genital mutilation and an surgery that is elective. The practice was outlawed because female children are unable to give proper consent to such a procedure, there is no perceived or real medical benefit from doing it, and the practice denies female children the right to body integrity. (1)

Point 2) Male circumcision remains legal, thus denying male children the right to body integrity that is granted to female children.

I would argue that if female circumcision was outlawed for the reasons illustrated in point 1, it should also be illegal to circumcise male children for the same reasons. If it is immoral to force one child to undergo an elective surgery of the genitalia, then it must also be immoral for all children. The right to body integrity is not a right that can be granted as it is self evident. As such, legislatively protecting that right to only one sex is immoral.

(1) http://www.reproductiverights.org...
JustRushdi

Con

So, the act of male circumcision is done on young boys, however, it is for their own good.

Just take it like this: if a child is suffering from something internal, then he will be forced to take a surgery whether he likes it or not. Because it's for his own good...
Now, that's no different to circumsicion on the male. Circumsicion has been proven to reduce the risk of UTI and STDs, it may also reduce the risk of developing cancer on the penis and may reduce the risk of female partners from developing some types of sexually transmitted infections such as Bacterial Vaginosis or Trichomoniasis.

About your point 1: Female Genital Mutilation has been outlawed not because of no proper consent, but, because it brings more HARM than good.
About your point 2: As I said, there is ALOT of benefit done due to the cause of circumcision. So, if you do, say an eye surgery on a child: "Does it mean that he is denied the right to body integrity?"

Good luck on the next round! :)
Debate Round No. 2
NotThatClever

Pro

Thank you for your reply and for your civility.

Point 1) "if a child is suffering from something internal, then he will be forced to take a surgery whether he likes it or not. Because it's for his own good...
Now, that's no different to circumsicion(sic) on the male."

Rebuttal: Elective surgery (circumcision) and surgery to repair an disorder, damage, or birth defect are not the same. One must declare the foreskin a birth defect before it could be considered a repair to remove it. Much in the same way we don't buy a new car and then, while still at the dealership, remove the tires and take it home on the rims only.

Point 2) "Circumsicion has been proven to reduce the risk of UTI and STDs, it may also reduce the risk of developing cancer on the penis and may reduce the risk of female partners from developing some types of sexually transmitted infections such as Bacterial Vaginosis or Trichomoniasis."

Rebuttal: Babies do not need protection from sexually transmitted diseases, nor do they need to protect a sexual partner from STD's because babies do not (typically) have sexual contact. Furthermore, I have asserted the age of consent to be 16 years old. If a male elects to have a circumcision at that age, then so be it. The protections would be in place at the request of the one undergoing the surgery.
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), "Bacteremia associated with UTI occurs during the first 6 months of life and is inversely related to age." (1) This then means that the older the child gets, the less likely they are to experience an UTI caused by foreskin. They also state the 0.1% of circumcised males will experience an UTI. Compared to 1% of uncircumcised males. This would mean that we are removing the foreskin from 100 babies to save one from a very treatable UTI. I find that 'reward' to be null and not worth the permanent risks associated with circumcision.

Point 3) "Female Genital Mutilation has been outlawed not because of no proper consent, but, because it brings more HARM than good. "

Rebuttal: FGM was indeed outlawed, in part, because no proper consent can be given. Proof of this is simply that a female of the legal age to consent can request and obtain a clitorectomy without any legal repercussions to the doctor. It is only made illegal for a doctor to provide this elective surgery on a minor. Thus proving there is a consent element to this procedure.

Point 4) "As I said, there is ALOT(sic) of benefit done due to the cause of circumcision. So, if you do, say an eye surgery on a child: "Does it mean that he is denied the right to body integrity?""

Rebuttal: To quote the American Academy of Pediatrics: "At this time, there is insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. Although there are potential benefits and risks, the procedure is usually not essential to the child"s well being. " (1) Their statement negates your assertion. Furthermore the comparison you draw with eye surgery was addressed in my rebuttal to point 1. Explicitly stated; losing eyesight without surgery is not morally equivalent to elective surgery to remove the foreskin.

(1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Thank you for the well wishes and please allow me to return the gesture; good luck on the next round.
JustRushdi

Con

JustRushdi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
NotThatClever

Pro

As round 3 was forfeited, I will be terse in my closing statements.

The recognized authority on pediatric medical care is the American Academy of Pediatrics. As I have quoted them stating: "At this time, there is insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." And because the case against male child circumcision based on morality was clearly stated and supported without rebuttal; I urge you to vote Pro thus casting your vote in favor of equal protection under the law and equitable societal morality.

Thank you.
JustRushdi

Con

JustRushdi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by NotThatClever 1 year ago
NotThatClever
This is another great debate topic. I don't see morality as grey-scale. I see it as black and white. Something is either moral or immoral. I would not concede that an action is more moral than another. It is an interesting thought though. Using that approach one could argue that dismembering a human (removing arms and legs) is more moral than decapitating that human. Then again, our laws are based on social morality and the consequences are different for each moral infraction. After all, stealing a candy bar should not hold the same penalty as murder.

I will think on that for a bit. Thank you for your input.

I have to wonder about the following statement:
"I would argue that a procedure that is more damaging and in no way beneficial"
There is a cultural, historical, and spiritual value to female and male circumcision. I think you mean there is no medical benefit?
Posted by Greg4586 1 year ago
Greg4586
Well if we are debating about the morality of the situation I would say that the points I bring up are very important to the debate of the morality of it because consequentialism is heavily used in the debate of morals and ethics. Also, I would argue that a procedure that is more damaging and in no way beneficial is more immoral than a procedure that is not as immoral than a procedure that is less damaging and somewhat beneficial even if both of them are immoral.
Posted by NotThatClever 1 year ago
NotThatClever
Greg,

Your points would make for a good debate about the cost/benefit of each procedure. Possibly a necessary debate too. I have left out any position on your points because I seek to address the morality of them only. Maybe a follow up debate could be had on the merits of each practice.
Posted by Greg4586 1 year ago
Greg4586
I don't support forced male circumcision, but it is very different and practically incomparable from forced female circumcision.

1. Female circumcision is not medically beneficial in any way. On the other hand, male circumcision does offer some proven medical benefits.

2. Female circumcision causes loss of pleasure during sex while if male circumcision takes away pleasure from sex is inconclusive.

3.Female circumcision is much more invasive and dangerous while male circumcision is relatively safe.
Posted by NotThatClever 1 year ago
NotThatClever
Don't go easy on me :) I won't get better if you do. Thank you for accepting and I look forward to a good debate.
Posted by JustRushdi 1 year ago
JustRushdi
Well my parents made...
Posted by JustRushdi 1 year ago
JustRushdi
I've been circumcised ;)... Seriously, I think it was the best choice I made!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
NotThatCleverJustRushdiTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff