The Instigator
DebateMomma
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

RIC (Routine Infant 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 1 vote the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 598 times Debate No: 82974
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)

 

DebateMomma

Con

This is my first Debate. This is something I am very passionate about and will warn whomever decides to accept my challenge that you will be bombarded with information.
Wylted

Pro

I just had a baby yesterday and had to do a lot of research to come to my decision on what to do here. I won't be sharing what that decision is, until the debate is over, but I do think the medical benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks and agree with the pediatrics association of America on that. I wish my opponent luck on disproving established medical science, as well as whatever religious and cultural arguments, I may or may not bring up.
Debate Round No. 1
DebateMomma

Con

Okay, I will begin with the biggest argument. "It is cleaner and there are less infections when circumcised."
The foreskin is fused to the head of the penis, just like your fingernail is to your nail bed until it naturally retracts usually around early teenage years. It seals out bacteria which causes infection. The foreskin is completely fused to the head, no bacteria can make its way in there. Doctors in the U.S. are not intact friendly for the most part and give out poor intact care advice. The most common thing they say is to retract the foreskin when cleaning it. However, because it is fused to the glans , retracting the foreskin is ripping the membranes from the glans. This is extremely painful. This is the reason you hear of a lot of intact men having infections, because they are forcefully retracted, it is an open wound which does attract bacteria and goes untreated. It is ALOT like ripping your fingernail off. The foreskin is self cleaning like the eyelids. Females have a lot more folds then men and we have no problem cleaning ourselves, all you have to do is wipe it like a finger. Circumcision is an open wound kept in a warm environment ridden by bacteria from urine and feces. It is very prone to infections.
Wylted

Pro

The Pediatric Association of America, reccomend a circumcision, because it reduces the chances of Urinary Tract Infection, it reduces the chances of sexually transmitted diseases, and it reduces the risk of penile cancer.

By not circumcising your child, you're increasing his chances of STDs, UTI and cancer. Oh, and by the way, the reason for the increased chances of UTI, are from uncleanliness. So you can't really claimed that uncircumcised penises are cleaner. Though the foreskin in nature, does prevent the penis from getting dirty, in the modern world, where we have soap and water, the existence of that foreskin, actually causes the penis to have a harder time being cleaned. http://www.m.webmd.com...
Debate Round No. 2
DebateMomma

Con

I feel as though you didn't read my previous argument because I did cover some of those topics.
STD's - Circumcised men get STD's also. STD's are prevented by practicing safe sex and using condoms. Cutting off functioning skin will not prevent that. I feel using STD's as an argument is completely ridiculous for that reason. You cannot increase nor decrease his risks of STD's by having him circumcised, if he has sex with someone who has an STD whether he is circumcised or not he will get the disease. UTI's can also happen one way or another, women get UTI's all the time, they are not necessarily caused by being unclean they are things that can just happen.
Cancer - Penile cancer does not happen until very late in life, if it does even happen at all, usually around their 80's. "(If they do even live to see this age. People aged 65 and up only make up 13% of the total population.) There is no proof that having a baby circumcised will reduce his risks of penile cancer, this is another thing that may happen even if he is circumcised. With this logic we should also cut off our baby girls breast buds at birth to prevent breast cancer, which is FAR more common.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) even states that circumcision benefits DO NOT outweigh the risks enough to recommend circumcision routinely among newborn boys.
Also as I stated before not only is the foreskin completely fused to the head of the penis sealing out ALL bacteria, but it is also self cleaning. So you cannot really say that it isn't cleaner. When the foreskin is removed it leaves the inside glans which are meant to be an internal organ left exposed to the environment. It then needs to adapt by keratinizing, or developing a layer of rough skin on the head. This desensitizes it. The reason for most infections is FORCED RETRACTION of an intact baby. So yes, it is cleaner leaving a baby intact.
Wylted

Pro

wow, this is getting tedious. All my opponent has done this far is attempt to mitigate the benefits of circumcision. Mitigating it is not enough. She must show that the benefit of having your child uncircumcised, outweighs the benefit of getting him circumcised to win. I'm going to do what I always do, when my opponent is making silly arguments, and go point by point.

STD's - Circumcised men get STD's also. STD's are prevented by practicing safe sex and using condoms. Cutting off functioning skin will not prevent that. I feel using STD's as an argument is completely ridiculous for that reason. You cannot increase nor decrease his risks of STD's by having him circumcised, if he has sex with someone who has an STD whether he is circumcised or not he will get the disease.

Having sex with somebody that has an STD, does not mean you'll automatically get an STD. It is recommended that both circumcised and uncircumcised men use protection when having sex, because it will reduce everyone's chances of getting STD's, but whether you use protection or not your chances of getting an STD are increased by not having a circumcision. Multiple things can make your chances of having an STD rise or fall, presuming that wearing condoms is the only factor that contributes to somebody's chances of getting an STD, is stupid.

According to Health.com, reporting on a study in the New England Journal of medicine;

"This finding"published in a March, 2009 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine"adds to the evidence that there are health benefits to circumcision, the surgical removal of the penis foreskin, usually performed on newborns shortly after birth. It was already known that circumcision can reduce the risk of penile cancer, a relatively rare disease, as well as the risk of HIV infection." http://www.health.com...

I have the New England Journal of Medicine backing up my claim that circumcisions reduce the risk of STD's my opponent has bare assertions which are uncited and untrustworthy
Stating that wearing condoms is the only factor in determining the likelihood somebody getting an STD. That circumcision has no effect on the rate of STD's. Sorry pro, I think I'm going to believe the New England Journal of medicine over the anonymous person on the internet who makes bare assertions, and doesn't cite their facts.

"UTI's can also happen one way or another, women get UTI's all the time, they are not necessarily caused by being unclean they are things that can just happen."

I don't deny UTI's can happen to anybody, nor do I deny that they can happen to both circumcised or uncircumcised men. We are looking at the risk factors associated with getting a newborn circumcised vs leaving them uncircumcised. We can see that getting a newborn circumcised, reduces their risk of getting UTI's, which is one of many reasons to get them circumcised. This would be like if I argued that people should wear seat belts, because it reduces their risk of dying in a car crash, and my opponent pointed out that, people belted or unbelted can die in crashes.

That type of argument is beside the point and out of left field. Obviously bad things can happen to somebody, whether they take precautions or not, but that doesn't mean that they should not take precautions. According to the American Academy of pediatrics, anyone can get a UTI, but uncircumcised males, increase their risk "12 fold". http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

This is one of the benefits of getting your infant circumcised, and so far my opponent has failed to mention a single benefit of not getting a baby circumcised. My opponent has merely tried to mitigate my benefits. This is not enough to win, my opponent has to list some benefits as well, otherwise at the end of this debate, I'll be the only one left standing, who has a list of benefits the judges can write down.

"enile cancer does not happen until very late in life, if it does even happen at all, usually around their 80's. "(If they do even live to see this age. People aged 65 and up only make up 13% of the total population.) There is no proof that having a baby circumcised will reduce his risks of penile cancer, this is another thing that may happen even if he is circumcised. With this logic we should also cut off our baby girls breast buds at birth to prevent breast cancer, which is FAR more common."

People can get penile cancer at any age, though it is more likely to happen later in life. Circumcision actually almost eliminates the possibility of penile cancer. I've provided all these facts by citing web MD, and it's absurd for my opponent to say that there is no evidence that penile cancer is reduced. For one thing, circumcision reduces the amount of area on a person's body that cancer can grow, so it's just common sense, but for another I cited a very respectable and trustworthy source of all medical information. (Web MD) Here is another one.

"The predicted lifetime risk of penile cancer for an uncircumcised man has been estimated as 1 in 600.......Lifetime risk in the total population of circumcised men is only 1 in 50,000" http://www.circinfo.net...

That's a huge increased risk factor. My opponent is just shaking her head covering her ears and singing "la la la".

"Also as I stated before not only is the foreskin completely fused to the head of the penis sealing out ALL bacteria, but it is also self cleaning. So you cannot really say that it isn't cleaner. When the foreskin is removed it leaves the inside glans which are meant to be an internal organ left exposed to the environment. It then needs to adapt by keratinizing, or developing a layer of rough skin on the head. This desensitizes it. The reason for most infections is FORCED RETRACTION of an intact baby. So yes, it is cleaner leaving a baby intact.

First of all, it's ridiculous to call penises self cleaning. If your boyfriend is not washing his penis because it is "self cleaning", he's lying to you. No penis is self cleaning. While proper care and maintenance of the penis can reduce the risk of UTI, it can't completely eliminate that possibility. You still are more likely to get a UTI, if you're uncircumcised, And I hate to break it to my opponent, but a lot of men maybe even most men don't clean their penis properly. We have to take into account that a lot of people are nasty.
Debate Round No. 3
DebateMomma

Con

DebateMomma forfeited this round.
Wylted

Pro

Vote for me, con mentioned no benefits to not having routine circumcision, and merely mitigated the benefits I mentioned.
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
I am uneducated, that's why losing this debate should be embarrassing to you. I wasn't insulting you anyway, I was insulting the guy crying that a useless piece of his dick was removed, one where he has no memory of the pain, yet wants to sue for pain and suffering
Posted by DebateMomma 1 year ago
DebateMomma
See you much like the rest of the uneducated population automatically go onto insult someone when you have nothing left to argue about. Brother K is an amazing man.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
Sounds like they may have accidently cut off his balls. I was mutilated, and my dick is awesome
Posted by DebateMomma 1 year ago
DebateMomma
No he is an amazing man who has saved hundreds of innocent baby boys from being mutilated.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
He sounds like a drama queen
Posted by DebateMomma 1 year ago
DebateMomma
Many men have actually gone on to sue their parents for circumcising them. Brother K is the leader of the bloodstained men, a group of men and women who protest all over America the torture of infant babies without their consent. Brother K changed his name back in the 80's because he associated it with his hospital circumcision. Brother K has saved hundreds of baby boys and made hundreds of men aware that they can fight back and they can do something about what as done to their bodies.
www.bloodstainedmen.com
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
I don't think the baby having regret matters. You're cutting off a part of their penis, without their permission so...
Posted by Rami 1 year ago
Rami
Something I want to understand is how many people regret that their parents gave them a circumcision. I saw that point in a debate, and you would be a unbiased source to say whether or not you regret it.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
Me too
Posted by Rami 1 year ago
Rami
Psh. I could testify myself that circumcision is fine. Had it done on myself when I was eight days old. I'm clearly fine now.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wipefeetnmat 1 year ago
wipefeetnmat
DebateMommaWyltedTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used reliable sources that were easy to confirm, unlike Con. Con's arguments were an attempt to rebut Pro's arguments, whose sources negate the rebuttals. Conduct is for FF.