The Instigator
InVinoVeritas
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points
The Contender
Jake15243
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Parents should have the right to have their male children circumsized

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
InVinoVeritas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,584 times Debate No: 23278
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

InVinoVeritas

Con

Should parents have the right to make a decision for their male infant-age child to get circumsized?

I say no. Opponent says yes.

First round is for acceptance.

Thank you.
Jake15243

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
InVinoVeritas

Con

Parents should not have the right to order that their child have his foreskin (healthy, functioning tissue) mutilated. Its health benefits are controversial, and even if we suppose that these benefits exist, the presence of the foreskin does not pose direct harm, in itself, to the infant. By forcing their children to be circumcised, parents are infringing upon the individual autonomy of their child and the child's right, as a human being, to make his own decisions when it comes to unnecessary acts of this nature.

So what is the harm of circumcising male children? Isn't it the same? Sure, functionality tends to, holistically, not change much. But should parents have the right to order the removal of their male children's nipples? Surely, the nipples are not needed, since their removal does not affect functionality... But the risks involved in their removal do not outweigh the lack of benefit. Moreover, shouldn't the child be able to grow up and make his own decision about whether he wants to have nipples or not? There is yet to be concrete medical evidence that circumcising a child is substantially beneficial, so there is no reason to allow parents to make the decision to mutilate their children's healthy tissue simply for the sake of their personal ideals and customs.

Thank you.
Jake15243

Pro

While I agree with you that there may be some negatives associated with circumcision although the benefits largely out weigh them. When a male child is circumcised the risk of contracting a urinary tract infection in later life is much lower, just one of the many health benefits of the medical procedure. Also while the tissue is healthy and functional, in modern society religion and cultural beliefs play a major role, although I am a white Atheist, the practice is common among Jewish communities. Such a practice is traditional and in the Jewish religion, parents believe that circumcising their male child will bring him respect and admiration from God, what gives anyone the right, whether they are of the same religion or not, to tell a family that they cannot carry out a harmless traditional medical procedure on their child? I would agree with you if it caused serious issues for the child later on in life, but it is quite rare that there are complications involved and the procedure is done with care and by a trained professional.

My opponent states that there is no concrete evidence to suggest that male circumcision has any medical benefits and while I agree with you on that, has there been any concrete evidence to suggest it is harmful to the child? Maybe just a couple of cases but then again there have been a few cases where it has proved to quite beneficial. In fact there have probably been more cases of it benefiting the child than harming him.
Debate Round No. 2
InVinoVeritas

Con

Studies have found that masturbation causes decreased sensitivity, increased ED rates, and more difficulty masturbating, among many other things (e.g., infection.) Furthermore, it is mutilation of healthy tissue without an urgent reason for removal... Why should parents be able to permanently mutilate their children's genitalia when they cannot give mature consent?

For the sake of family members' beliefs, a child should be operated on (and yes, circumcision is an operational procedure)? The child will grow up to be his own individual with his own beliefs that may or may not match those of his parents. Unnecessary body modification should be up to the individual, not to the parents, as much as we like to think that everything parents do is out of love and caring. If circumcision is just a way of stubbornly maintaining cultural and religious traditions, then it is not justified. A child should not be unnecessary operated on and mutilated solely to conform to his parents' beliefs.
Jake15243

Pro

Like I said in my initial argument that there are some disadvantages but they are heavily outweighed by the advantages. Also how many things are there in a person's life where the parents make the decision for their child it's because the child is not able to give an answer. If you want to stop parents from having the right to circumcise their male children you might as well ban them from having surgery to remove a tumour. What I mean by my example is that someone who chooses to circumcise their child believes that there are so many advantages but the child does not have a say and it may also be recommended by a doctor, and with a tumour a doctor would recommend surgery to remove it, there are many health benefits and the child still doesn't have a say, the parents still have to decide and why should they lose that right.
Debate Round No. 3
InVinoVeritas

Con

"If you want to stop parents from having the right to circumcise their male children you might as well ban them from having surgery to remove a tumor."

Removing a malignant tumor is required because it threatens the life of the child. Moreover, a benign tumor can cause seizures or discomfort. [1] If they do not cause any negative effects, though, then we must consider that they are abnormal. Despite their abnormality, I would say that parents should not be allowed to make the decision to remove it. However, their abnormality can be used to defend an argument stating others. But the presence of a tumor is very different from the presence of a foreskin; one is normal and one is abnormal. Virtually all healthy male children are born with foreskin; in this way, it differs from a benign tumor. And foreskin is healthy tissue that poses no immediate risk to the child's health, unlike a malignant tumor.

Virtually no major established medical institution in the developed world advocates the circumcision of male infants. [2] If a doctor were to specifically recommend it, then he/she would be going against the platforms of a vast majority of established medical associations in the first world. Seldom, hence, would such a recommendation be made.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.circumcision.org...
Jake15243

Pro

Jake15243 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
InVinoVeritasJake15243Tied
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: Haven't read but forfeit for conduct.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
InVinoVeritasJake15243Tied
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