The Instigator
TheMarketLibertarian
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Overhead
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Circumcision of minors without absolute medical necessity should be banned

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 1 vote the winner is...
TheMarketLibertarian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,275 times Debate No: 100851
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (38)
Votes (1)

 

TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

The full resolution: the circumcision, or any other form of genital cutting, of anyone under the age of 18, unless out of absolute medical necessity, is genital mutilation, and should be banned.
Overhead

Con

I accept the debate and look forward to Pro's arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

The resolution consists in 2 points which I must now prove- first, that circumcision is genital mutilation, and second, that it should be banned.

I. THAT CIRCUMCISION IS GENITAL MUTILATION
Genital Mutilation is defined as: {1}
"Any type of cutting or removal of all or some of the genital organs"
Circumcision is defined as:
"To remove the prepuce of a male."
Circumcision refers to the removal of part of the genital organs, which fits the definition of genital mutilation- thus fulfilling my first burden of proof.

2. THAT CIRCUMCISION ON MINORS SHOULD BE BANNED
Title 18 Section 116, United States Code, prohibits the removal of any part of the genitalia of a female who is under the age of 18, save out of absolute medical necessity, and only permitted to be done by a licensed practitioner. Though this law only explicitly prohibits the mutilation of female genitalia, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the Law to all citizens of the United States, men and women. Therefore, male circumcision should be illegal- as to keep it legal is a violation of the 14th Amendment. {3}

{1}. http://www.dictionary.com...
{2}. http://www.dictionary.com...
{3}. https://www.law.cornell.edu...

Overhead

Con

I am happy to accept Pro's definitions.

Rebuttal

To summarise Pro's argument, the way the USA government handles Female Genitam Mutilation should be expanded and made to apply to both sexes. If we do this, circumcision (as a form of genital mutilation) should supposedly be banned.

Now there are a lot of holes I could poke in this such as:

- Why should the USA's government's laws be the ones we look at. I am not part of the USA and neither is most of the world.
- Why are the female genitals considered the baseline that male genitals revert to, why not vice versa? Why not treat female genitals like make ones?
- Why are we treating different genitals that have different health risks from different procedures as if they are the same thing and a violation of the 14th amendment?

However I don't need to because based on his own definition and sources, Pro has conceded the point.

His third source, and the only one that isn't a basic dictionary definition, does not support what he says. The USA actually only bans certain kinds of female genital mutilation, nameley:

"circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris"[1]

So although it outlaws some actions performed on some part of the vulva, some sections of the vulva like the mons pubis, bulb of vestibule, vulval vestibule, etc are not covered by this law as they are not part of the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris[2] and some actions are fine even when performed on those sections, like a small surgical cut to the labia which causes no lasting damge or even scars.

That last example is not a technicality I've invented, but a specific and practiced form of gental alteration which fit's Pro's definition of mutilation ("Any type of cutting or removal of all or some of the genital organs") and is actually advocated by academics as a method which can meet religion and cultural criteria without leaving lasting damage to the child and reduce the number of people who pursue the harmful and long-term damaging types of genital mutilation. [3] All of which still meets Pro's definition of genital mutilation.

So in actuality, what the USA does is regulate female genital mutilation. As with all kinds of things - from weapons to food - it allows some kinds and bans others.

If we therefore follow Pro's argument and use the USA's treatment of FGM as our basis, then circumcision should be legal. It falls under the type of "mutilation" that is legal on females as one that has no common long term health risks.

As Pro has conceded the argument, I don't feel the need to make a positive argument of my own at this stage.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://jme.bmj.com...

Debate Round No. 2
TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

In response to my opponents argument- though some forms of Genital alterations on women are legal, all forms of body altering procedures are prohibited to be preformed on minors. But even if we were to assume that it was legal, Male Circumcision is not a minor cosmetic procedure, instead, it refers to the removal of a specialized part of the male genitals, the most sensitive part as a matter of fact. The equivalent would be to cut out a girls clitoris, which is illegal, and a blatant violation of bodily autonomy.
Overhead

Con

To answer point by point

"In response to my opponents argument- though some forms of Genital alterations on women are legal, all forms of body altering procedures are prohibited to be preformed on minors."

Wrong and shown to be incorrect by your own sources. This unevidenced statement which contradicts your own sources and is backed up by no proof adds nothing to your argument due to already having been proven incorrect in the last round.

I mean even if you hadn't already disproven your argument this fails to pass a common sense review. You think all body altering procedures are prohibited on minors? You've never seen a 15 year old with earrings?

Male Circumcision is not a minor cosmetic procedure, instead, it refers to the removal of a specialized part of the male genitals, the most sensitive part as a matter of fact. The equivalent would be to cut out a girls clitoris, which is illegal, and a blatant violation of bodily autonomy.

This is both ignorant and offensive.

It is ignorant because cutting off a girl's clitoris would be the equivalent to removing the penis glands (the head of the penis) not the foreskin. The clitoris glans and penis glans are homologous meaning they form from the same embryological precursor [1]. Indeed, due to the two sharing a common purpose, function and design it should seem obvious they are linked.

It is offensive because female genital mutliation is objectively far worse than circumcision.

Female circumcision can remove the pleasure from sex almost entirely for women for the entirety of their lives [2]. Meanwhile peer reviewed scientific studies have found that when you compare circumcised men to non-circumcised men "Penile sensitivity did not differ across circumcision status for any stimulus type or penile site." [3].

Female circumcision typically causes a host of health issues including [2]


    • constant pain
    • repeated infections, which can lead to infertility
    • bleeding, cysts and abcesses
    • problems passing urine or incontinence
    • depression, flashbacks and self-harm
    • problems during labour and childbirth, which can be life-threatening for mother and baby




Meanwhile Male circumcision gives health benefits. The World Health Organisation for instance points out that "Male circumcision is one of the oldest and most common surgical procedures worldwide, and is undertaken for many reasons: religious, cultural, social and medical. There is conclusive evidence from observational data and three randomized controlled trials that circumcised men have a significantly lower risk of becoming infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)." [4]


There is no negative effects known for circumcision itself, only for medical negligence in performing surgical procedures which is something that applies to every type of surgery and even then is tiny with a peer reviewed scientigic study finding that "benefits exceed risks by at least 100 to 1" and suggests that "When considered together with ethical and human rights arguments, neonatal circumcision should logically be strongly supported and encouraged as an important evidence-based intervention akin to childhood vaccination". [5] This is based on an extensive review of the literature and studies to date.

To compare the two as if they were the same is to misuse and demean the suffering of women who have suffered genital mutilation which in no way comapres to circumcision. If you think male circumcision should be banned then you should argue based on the issues with male circumcision itself, now with inappropriate comparisons.

Lastly, I would point out that the freedom to practice religion is enshirned in the Universal Decleration of Human Rights (article 18). Infringing people's religious rights is a violation of one of the most fundamental and basic sets of morality governming all humankind. [6]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.nhs.uk...
[3] https://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://www.who.int...
[5] http://www.sciencedirect.com...
[6] http://www.un.org...

Debate Round No. 3
TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

My opponent claims that quote :
"Female Genital Mutilation is objectively far worse than circumcision... Female circumcision can remove the pleasure from sex almost entirely for women for the entirety of their lives."

How then is it any different? Circumcision destroys 75% of a males ability to feel pleasure, {1} this is most certainly the moral equivalent to Female Genital Mutilation.

Further, he states that:
"Meanwhile peer reviewed scientific studies have found that when you compare circumcised men to non-circumcised men 'Penile sensitivity did not differ across circumcision status for any stimulus type or penile site.'"

This is clearly false- removing half of a persons erogenous tissue as well as the fraenulum and the rigid band, THE most sensitive parts of the male genitalia, is obviously going to affect penile sensitivity.

He continues and claims:
"Female circumcision typically causes a host of health issues including..."



No one doubted that FGM was horrible, but honest to the non-existent God, MGM has a number of horrible side effects as well- and actually shares the majority of these side effects.

His second to last statement:
"Meanwhile Male circumcision gives health benefits. The World Health Organisation for instance points out that "Male circumcision is one of the oldest and most common surgical procedures worldwide, and is undertaken for many reasons: religious, cultural, social and medical. There is conclusive evidence from observational data and three randomized controlled trials that circumcised men have a significantly lower risk of becoming infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)."

Yes, I am well aware that the WHO holds a double standard in regards to Male and Female Genital Mutilation- with regards to this, they completely ignore the fact that Female Genital Mutilation also reduces the chances of HIV. {2} Either way, I don't see how this justifies anything- if you cut off your whole penis your chances of catching an STD would drop to 0, and it would cure any STD's you had prior, would this then make it morally legitimate to chop off males entire penises? After all, you can't get Genital Herpes without Genitals right?

Finally, my opponent states:
"Lastly, I would point out that the freedom to practice religion is enshrined in the Universal Deceleration of Human Rights (article 18). Infringing people's religious rights is a violation of one of the most fundamental and basic sets of morality governing all humankind."

Religious freedom is necessarily limited to that which an individual decides to do with their own self- this in no way permits people to infringe others liberties in the practise of their religion. It was part of the Mayans religion to rip out their children's hearts, and yet this is banned, regardless of a persons religion. It is part of the Muslims religion to commit terrorist attacks, and yet this is illegal, without regard to the religion of the person committing them.
The babies that this barbaric practise is being done to are not Jews or Muslims, they are Atheists- and so this practise is not permitted under the Freedom of Religion, but instead violates this right. Milton Friedman states:
"We do not believe in the right of the parents to do whatever they will with their children- to beat them, murder them, or sell them into slavery. Children are responsible individuals in embryo. They have ultimate rights of heir own and are not simply the play-things of their parents." {3}

{1}. https://www.avoiceformen.com...
{2}. http://scholarworks.gsu.edu...
{3}. "Free to Chose," by Milton and Rose Friedman, Chapter 1.
Overhead

Con

How then is it any different? Circumcision destroys 75% of a males ability to feel pleasure, {1} this is most certainly the moral equivalent to Female Genital Mutilation.

With this argument, PRO not only shows the weakness of his own argument but the utter lack of proof to back up his argument.

He cites "www.avoiceformen.com", a website which appears to lack any and all academic or journalistic accreditations or methodology. The specific article is posted by a member of an anti-circumcision coalition. This should already ring alarm bells, that Pro is forced to rely on the most biased sources available.

The specific article cites a supposed study without ever actually linking to it, mentioning the name of the study or mentioning who wrote it. All we know is that it is supposedly new and in the British Journal of Urology International. However when we look in the British Journal of Urology International for the month this article was published (July 2013) plus a month either side[1], there is no such study.

In fact the only circumcision related content is a letter about a study supporting my point of view! [2] This is especialyl notable because it's a meta-study, aka a study of studies where it collates all the available studies on a subject and reviews the data as a whole to give an overall view of what the research shows. So rather than cherrypicking one bad study which happens to prove your point of view as many people this would do, this shows us what the scientific consensus as a whole is on the subject and it supports me.

Not only is Pro relying on fake news, but he's once again shot himself in the foot and tried to reference sources (albeit this time two steps removed) which prove him wrong.

This is clearly false- removing half of a persons erogenous tissue as well as the fraenulum and the rigid band, THE most sensitive parts of the male genitalia, is obviously going to affect penile sensitivity.

Except so far these only constituse" half of a person's erogenous tissue" and "THE most sensitive parts of the male genitalia" in your head and despite this being "obvious" you can't seem to present any proof.

Even if you hadn't destroyed any confidence in your opinion due to the multiple false claims you've made which have proven to be wrong and you have had to stop responding to as they've indefensible, the burden of proof is on you to back up your claims.

No one doubted that FGM was horrible, but honest to the non-existent God, MGM has a number of horrible side effects as well- and actually shares the majority of these side effects.

I have provided an academic study evaluating the effects of male circumcision and showing that these do not occur [3] in male circumcision and another to show they do occur in women [4]. To counter this you provide absolutely nothing. No logic, no evidence.

Unless you can provide anything to actually back up your claims, there is no reason to consider your side of the argument as significant because all the evidence shows male circumcision is really inconsequential.

Yes, I am well aware that the WHO holds a double standard in regards to Male and Female Genital Mutilation- with regards to this, they completely ignore the fact that Female Genital Mutilation also reduces the chances of HIV. {2}

Except Female Fenital Mutulation doesn't reduce the chances of HIV and your source doesn't say that it does. It in fact specifically says that "causality was not established during this study", points our several flaws in its own methodology and recommends further research to look into this[5]. Did you just grab the first thing that came up in a google search without reading it?

Either way, I don't see how this justifies anything- if you cut off your whole penis your chances of catching an STD would drop to 0, and it would cure any STD's you had prior, would this then make it morally legitimate to chop off males entire penises? After all, you can't get Genital Herpes without Genitals right?

Are you also unable to see the difference between taking a vaccine and deliberetely trying to infect yourself with the Ebola virus? Or defending yourself from a mugger with your fists and defending yourself from a mugger with a nuke?

Aside from the superficial similarity of "The penis is in some way cut" circumcision and completely chopping off the penis are completely different in how they effect the person. As shown with peer reviewed scientific studies and so far refuted by you with nothing, circumcision doesn't result in harm to the person receiving it aside from some short-term soreness while it heals. Chopping off an entire penis will disable someone for their entire life. Those are two very very VERY different things.

Again, unable to actually come up with any reasons why circumcision is wrong based on its own merits Pro is forced to make these comparisons which are absurd to the most extreme degree.

Religious freedom is necessarily limited to that which an individual decides to do with their own self- this in no way permits people to infringe others liberties in the practise of their religion. It was part of the Mayans religion to rip out their children's hearts, and yet this is banned, regardless of a persons religion. It is part of the Muslims religion to commit terrorist attacks, and yet this is illegal, without regard to the religion of the person committing them.
The babies that this barbaric practise is being done to are not Jews or Muslims, they are Atheists- and so this practise is not permitted under the Freedom of Religion, but instead violates this right.

This isn't banned because "Religious freedom is necessarily limited to that which an individual decides to do with their own self". It wouldn't be legal to rip someone's heart out even if they agreed.

The reasons ALL freedoms are limited (not just religious freedom) is limited is because people's rights come into conflict. When this happens, a framework is needed to resolve how the conflict of these rights is settled and that framework is the law

If your right to liberty come into conflict with other people's right to life because you're a serial killer and are murdering them, your right to liberty will be impinged upon by being imprisoned because the widespread consensus is that people' right to life is far more important.

A less extreme example would be the Levenson enquiry in the UK where therer was a serious enquiry into the nature of the right to privacy versus the right to freedom of speech/thepress and whether the current laws were imbalanced too much and didn't offer a fair middle ground. [6]

Now as far as I am aware, literally EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY ON EARTH considers parents to be able to give consent by proxy to their children on a wide range of issues and considers male circumcision to be firmly in the camp of a legal and permissable expression of Freedom of Religion because of the absence of adverse effects (unlike murdering people as per your examples). So literally every single national judiciary and legislative body on the planet disagrees with your interpretations of how human rights and religious freedom work.

Milton Friedman states:
"We do not believe in the right of the parents to do whatever they will with their children- to beat them, murder them, or sell them into slavery. Children are responsible individuals in embryo. They have ultimate rights of heir own and are not simply the play-things of their parents." {3}

Firstly, why should we care what Milton Friedman states on this matter?

Secondly, even if we do care you have again helped disprove your entire argument - although in this case it isn't quite obvious. I have to do a bit of work because you're cherrypicking the quote to misrepresent Friedman - an ethically poor tactic that shouldn't be used in an honest and open debate. Let me quote that full section;

"A fourth duty of government that Adam Smith did not explicitly mention is the duty to protect members of the community who cannot be regarded as "responsible" individuals. Like Adam Smith's third duty, this one, too, is susceptible of great abuse. Yet it cannot be avoided.
Freedom is a tenable objective only for responsible individuals. We do not believe in freedom for madmen or children. We must somehow draw a line between responsible individuals and others, yet doing so introduces a fundamental ambiguity into our ultimate objective of freedom. We cannot categorically reject paternalism for those whom we consider as not responsible.
For children we assign responsibility in the first instance to parents. The family, rather than the individual, has always been and remains today the basic building block of our society, though its hold has clearly been weakening—one of the most unfortunate consequences of the growth of government paternalism. Yet the assignment of responsibility for children to their parents is largely a matter of expediency rather than principle. We believe, and with good reason, that parents have more interest in their children than anyone else and can be relied on to protect them and to assure their development into responsible adults. However, we do not believe in the right of the parents to do whatever they will with their children—to beat them, murder them, or sell them into slavery. Children are responsible individuals in embryo. They have ultimate rights of their own and are not simply the playthings of their parents."

In fact what Friedman says is that parents are able to make choices on behalf of their children (a basic common sense idea almost everyone agrees with) but there are some extreme things disallowed like slavery and torture (again, common sense). At no point is it suggested that circumcision is in the camp of things like murder, therefore backing up my point of view.

[1] https://goo.gl...
[2] https://goo.gl...
[3] https://goo.gl...
[4] http://www.nhs.uk...
[5] https://goo.gl...
[6] https://goo.gl...
Debate Round No. 4
TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

My opponent starts out his response by claiming that circumcision does not reduce sexual pleasure, and attempting to refute one such source that shows this, by claiming that it was 'biased.' All sources are biased- all of my opponents sources came from groups who support circumcision, the issue arises when a given source makes a claim without proof, or a claim that is demonstrably false. The claim made by this site was based on adding up how sensitive each part of a man's penis was, and comparing then subtracting the sensitivity of all parts removed in circumcision- these claims are completely based in fact. The sensitivity levels for each part of the penis, that this site based its claim off of, are entirely factual. {1} The University of California has confirmed this reality as well. {2}

Furthermore, my opponent falsely claims that circumcision does not have any bad effects, but this is, again, simply not true. As Psychologist Darcia Narvaez Ph.D. stated:
"Circumcision in childhood and adolescence has significant negative psychological consequences. Following a traumatic event, many children experience anxiety, depression, and anger; and many others try to avoid and suppress these painful feelings (Gil, 2006). In addition, children often experience a debilitating loss of control that negatively affects their ability to regulate emotions and make sense of the traumatic experience (Van der Kolk, 2005)." {3}

Further, it turns out that the studies which my opponent points to were immensely flawed, and contradicted by numerous other studies which showed the opposite:
"Three studies in Africa several years ago that claimed that circumcision prevented AIDS and that circumcision was as effective as a 60% effective vaccine (Auvert 2005, 2006). These studies had many flaws, including that they were stopped before all the results came in. There have also been several studies that show that circumcision does not prevent HIV (Connolly 2008)." {4}

My opponent claims:
"Now as far as I am aware, literally EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY ON EARTH considers parents to be able to give consent by proxy to their children on a wide range of issues and considers male circumcision to be firmly in the camp of a legal and permissible expression of Freedom of Religion because of the absence of adverse effects (unlike murdering people as per your examples). So literally every single national judiciary and legislative body on the planet disagrees with your interpretations of how human rights and religious freedom work."

This is false- Sweden and Denmark have stated that all non-medical circumcision should be banned, {5} and Sweden has recently followed through with this recommendation, as well as Germany. {6}

Milton Friedman is a very respected source, he was the winner of both a Nobel Prize and the Presidential Medal of freedom- but regardless, I was only quoting Milton Friedman because he made a valid point, and one which refutes my opponents claim of religious freedom.
That quote does not back my opponents stance- Milton Friedman stated that, though parents should be left in charge of their children, this does not allow hem to inflict harm on them or to infringe their liberties, as they are their own person with their own rights. Circumcision constitutes a violation of those rights, the right to bodily autonomy, genital integrity, and property rights. This is not a legitimate use of parental rights.

{1}.
http://www.livescience.com...
{2}. http://www.soc.ucsb.edu...
{3}. https://www.psychologytoday.com...
{4}. https://www.psychologytoday.com...
{5}. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk...
{6}}. http://www.bbc.co.uk...
{7}.
Overhead

Con

All sources are biased- all of my opponents sources came from groups who support circumcision, the issue arises when a given source makes a claim without proof, or a claim that is demonstrably false

While this could be an interesting philisophical debate to get into, even if this argument is accepted is is clear that different people and organisations are less biased than others. After all if you want to find out about the Holocaust, you don't go a neo-nazi website. There are plenty of neutral options. Pro's reliance on extremist non-representative anti-circumcision organisations rather than the neutral parties I've been relying upon, like scientific studies and medical organisations, shows the poor backing for his point of view - especially when his sources don't have any proof besides unevidenced opinion or actually say the opposite of what he claims.

The claim made by this site was based on adding up how sensitive each part of a man's penis was, and comparing then subtracting the sensitivity of all parts removed in circumcision- these claims are completely based in fact. The sensitivity levels for each part of the penis, that this site based its claim off of, are entirely factual.

Here Pro claims that he provides details of the study his R4 source was talking about. Of course, it only proves that Pro was looking at fake news.

Pro's R4 article he is defending talks about a newly released study without giving any details of what this study is or that it actually exists. It was posted in 2013. [1] The new article he says provides details about the study is from 2007. [2] Either it is not the study being talked about or his article misrepresented the truth to try and fake new research having been made by reposting about a 6 year old study as if it is new. Either outcome means Pro's R4 source is fake news.

Now to look at the study referenced in his new R5 source [2]. It does not actually show that men have a detracted ability to reach orgasm or receive pleasure from sex. In this case it actually refers to the ability to detect whether their penis has been gently touched with a fine-tool intrument. Maybe there are some men who place great pride in their ability to detect whether their penis has been prodded by a fine tool. I don't know.

What I do know is that when studies have actually examined circumcised men's ability to acheive pleasure in sex, no difference has been found. In fact in the metastudy collating 10 seperate peer reviewed studies I posted in R4, no difference was found. [3] Here's another metastudy of 36 peer reviewed academic studies which "medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction" [4].

Hell, there are even studies which show "Circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and enhanced ease of reaching orgasm" because when a lot of studies are conducted on a subject some will come in a little high and some a little low.

In R5 Pro has finally managed to produce an actual study referencing circumcision in a negative way. However it doesn't really support his case as it doesn't reference the kind of sensitivity being talked about and it is shown to be irrelevent in the face of the massive overwhelming scientific consensus which contradicts him and supports me as embodied in the dozens of studies referenced in the supplied metastudies.

The University of California has confirmed this reality as well.

Pro's source makes no claim for a loss of sensitivity, which is calls "nearly impossible to determine" but DOES back up my claims by saying "Circumcising males in many poverty-stricken African countries could prevent two million new cases of HIV and up to 300,000 or more deaths within the next 10 years".

Furthermore, my opponent falsely claims that circumcision does not have any bad effects, but this is, again, simply not true. As Psychologist Darcia Narvaez Ph.D. stated

Pro provides a quote from an article in a general interest psychology magazine - again, not an actual peer reviewed study that has stood up to any kind of academic scrutiny - which quotes two sources:

Gil, E. (2006). Helping abused and traumatized children.
and
Van der Kolk, B.A. (2005). Developmental trauma disorder: Towards a rational diagnosis for children with complex trauma histories. Psychiatric Annals, 35, 401-408.

The former is a book so isn't readily available, but a search on google books shows the word circumcision does not appear in it even once. [7]
The latter makes absolutely no reference to circumcision. [8]

Unable to provide actual study and research to back up his points, Pro has once again relied on secondary sources which make false claims about what the research actually shows.

Further, it turns out that the studies which my opponent points to were immensely flawed, and contradicted by numerous other studies which showed the opposite

"Three studies in Africa several years ago that claimed that circumcision prevented AIDS and that circumcision was as effective as a 60% effective vaccine (Auvert 2005, 2006). These studies had many flaws, including that they were stopped before all the results came in. There have also been several studies that show that circumcision does not prevent HIV (Connolly 2008)."

Unfortunately for Pro, I did not reference these three studies mentioned at any point in this debate. However in relation to HIV prevention I did reference in R3 the World Health organisation's sumarry of more than 193 peices of research and study into Male circumcision. [9]

Meanwhile Pro provides no proof that the three random studies I never referenced are actually false and compared to my collection of over a hundred studies, pro provides only one study (Connolly 2002) which finds "When restricted to sexually active men, the difference that remained did not reach statistical significance (8.9% v. 13.6%, p = 0.08."[9] The p value is the chance that these results came by due to random chance [10].

In this case a p value of 0,08 means there is a 8% chance that the the results where due to chance and a 92% chance that they are due to male circumcision offering protection from HIV. Pro fails to realise this because scientific studies typically aim for a 95%+ certainty, so although it is not adequate for scientific standards and the conclusion comes down as negative by the standards of a debate even his cherrypicked unrepresenetative study still shows a strong liklihood that circumcision prevents HIV!

Also let's not forget that, as mentioned earlier, his 2nd source PRO provided in R5 says that circumcision prevents HIV!

This is false- Sweden and Denmark have stated that all non-medical circumcision should be banned,

False. Pro's own source states one medical organisation within each country suggested it, not that either country's legislature or judiciary ever agreed or instituted any ban. Also noteworthy is that again according to Pro's own source the Swdedish suggestion which was never taken up would still have allowed the circumcision of minors, albeit with restrictions on 12+ and with the child's consent.[11]

Milton Friedman is a very respected source, he was the winner of both a Nobel Prize and the Presidential Medal of freedom-

For his work in economics. He isn't a biologist or doctor. I respect a great many people but just because Stephen Hawking knows a lot about physics doesn't mean I would use him as a source when it comes to morality and medical procedures. it is just a completely random person to quote even if his quote in any way supported your argument (which it doesn't).

That quote does not back my opponents stance- Milton Friedman stated that, though parents should be left in charge of their children, this does not allow hem to inflict harm on them or to infringe their liberties, as they are their own person with their own rights. Circumcision constitutes a violation of those rights, the right to bodily autonomy, genital integrity, and property rights. This is not a legitimate use of parental rights.

Wrong.

Pro appears not to have read the quote, which is par for the course.

He claimed Friedman says: "this does not allow hem to inflict harm on them"

This is false. As per the R4 quote he only objects to the most extreme forms of harm, like torture and slavery. There is no mention of objection to more routine forms of harm that parents might subject children to, from spanking to circumcision to dentistry (which is very comparable to circumcision in that it has overall health benefits but can have short-term pain). Friedman make the point that EXTREME violations of liberty are not allowed. As circumcision is viewed around the world as a routine operation by all but an extreme minority, there is no reason to think Friedman supports Pro's view and every reason to think he supports mine.

Pro also adds "or to infringe their liberties".

Again, this is obviously false. As per the full quote I provide in R4 Friedman specifically says "We do not believe in freedom for madmen or children". Only the most extreme examble of violating liberties are listed as wrong, not circumcision.


SUMMARY

As shown, the majority of Pro's own evidence actually contradicts him and what doesn't contradict him is irrelevent and doesn't help his claims.

He has failed to respond to a number of points, dropping the arguments on the pain that female circumcision causes in comparison to male circumcision (which he relied on to make his case in R2 and R3), on the applicability of the rights embodied in the universal decleration of human rights and on the applicability of US federal law. The last point is especially damning as by his own logic (as shown in my R2) circumcision should be legal.

Please vote Con.

[1] https://goo.gl...
[2] https://goo.gl...
[3] https://goo.gl...
[4] https://goo.gl...
[5] https://goo.gl...
[6] https://goo.gl...
[7] https://goo.gl...
[8] https://goo.gl...
[9] https://goo.gl...
[10] https://goo.gl...
[11] https://goo.gl...
[12] https://goo.gl...
Debate Round No. 5
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 9 months ago
TheMarketLibertarian
I said it has many religious elements but isn't a religion.
Posted by Overhead 9 months ago
Overhead
When you say that a major world religion has no religious elements, you aren't going to get people taking you seriously.

When you try and cast an entire religious group of people is indoctrinated soldiers, aka judging people based on a grouping rather than their individual beliefs, personality, etc that makes you by definition a bigot.
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 9 months ago
TheMarketLibertarian
Islam is a military doctrine with any religious elements, invented by a psychotic maniac child molesting con artist, as a way to convince Backward Middle Eastern savages with an average IQ of 71 to join his army and run around the middle east with him, raping pillaging and plundering in the name of his imaginary friend.
Posted by FathimaManal 9 months ago
FathimaManal
I completely disagree to the example set by pro in religious context. It is not in a Muslims religion to act out on terrorism! Islam does not promote terrorism and it would be understood upon how peaceful Islam is once the religion is carefully studied by the main source that provides the bases and proof of the religion itself- the Quran. The quran is what is being studied and I hope you review the meanings carefully before making such accusing statements in the future.
Posted by Tinkle888 1 year ago
Tinkle888
It's still not banned though, it's not banned and a legal procedure if done in hospitals.
Posted by Tinkle888 1 year ago
Tinkle888
It's still not banned though, it's not banned and a legal procedure if done in hospitals.
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 1 year ago
TheMarketLibertarian
I did read it- it bring illegal in a province is the first step toward it being banned in Sweden. 74% of Danes want it banned too.
Posted by Tinkle888 1 year ago
Tinkle888
Read before posting a link, a county? It's still legal in Sweden.
Posted by Tinkle888 1 year ago
Tinkle888
Male circumcision is legal in Germany, Sweden and every European country.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Theguy1789 1 year ago
Theguy1789
TheMarketLibertarianOverheadTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Since both sides of this debate abandoned the resolution fairly quickly, it was hard to determine a winner- I will post my RFD in the comments.