The Instigator
harrytruman
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ReeThoughts
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Religious/Ethical Circumcision is not Male Genital Mutilation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 6/29/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 205 times Debate No: 93054
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

harrytruman

Pro

Circumcision is not male genital mutilation, that's absurd.
ReeThoughts

Con

What is truly absurd is that baby boys have their foreskins cut away for no medical or legitimate reason other than 'GOD HATES FORESKIN'. It goes against the basic right to bodily autonomy, thus making it outright immoral.
Debate Round No. 1
harrytruman

Pro

My opponent claims that there is no other reason for circumcision other than that "G-d hates foreskin," then that it somehow denies people the right of bodily autonomy.

First of all I never heard that G-d hates foreskin, that's not a thing. Second of all there are many reasons for circumcision, first of all it reduces STDs by 60% {1}, it is also easier to clean.

Circumcision does not deny boys bodily autonomy, if a baby was born with a 6th finger that was only skin and was subject to infection, looked gross, and served no purpose, they would most likely cut it off.

{1}.https://www.theguardian.com...
ReeThoughts

Con

I can argue the 6th finger analogy; don't chop off any body part unless it is affecting the health of the child. Just don't. It's not hurting them, so why bother? If he or she wants it removed at a later date, let them. That's not a hard concept to grasp. Same goes for the foreskin. Not issues, no need for amputation.
Debate Round No. 2
harrytruman

Pro

Amputation refers to removing a limb, and when a baby is born, they cut the ambelic cord do they not? Maybe we should let them decide to have this cord removed at s later date, in the mean time we will leave an unhygienic price of flesh that serves no purpose but to hold bacteria on it, until it rotts off. If you take this logic to it's ends, it is thoroughly absurd.
ReeThoughts

Con

The umbilical cord would naturally rot away to a stump anyway. It also has no nerves in it, meaning the removal of it is essentially painless. The foreskin, however, does have nerves, so removal is painful. Also, it isn't at immediate risk of infection while an umbilical cord is effectively an open wound.
Debate Round No. 3
harrytruman

Pro

The point was it is unnecesary and should be removed, and you still haven't proven it to be MGM
ReeThoughts

Con

You know what else is useless? The appendix. Why don't we remove them at birth? After all, they MIGHT cause issues in the future, just like a man's foreskin MIGHT cause him to catch an STD in future.
Debate Round No. 4
harrytruman

Pro

No, the appendix is immune system, and that is internal, the foreskin is just a useless bit of skin.
ReeThoughts

Con

Lets cut off ear lobes, in that case. Excellent point, my friend. DEATH TO FORESKIN AND EAR LOBES!
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by RonPaulConservative 3 months ago
RonPaulConservative
Genital mutilation is defined as cutting or removing all of or part of a persons genitalia, so yes Circumcision is mutilation.
No votes have been placed for this debate.