Male child circumcision is as immoral as female child circumcision
Debate Rounds (4)
2nd round is positional argument.
3rd round is rebuttal.
4th round is statement in conclusion.
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.
All elective child circumcision is immoral.
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.
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! :)
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.
Thank you for the well wishes and please allow me to return the gesture; good luck on the next round.
JustRushdi forfeited this round.
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.
JustRushdi forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: ff
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.