The Instigator
SMAathew
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
1Devilsadvocate
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

To circumcise or not

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 2 votes the winner is...
1Devilsadvocate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 929 times Debate No: 29625
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

SMAathew

Con

Hey this is my first debate. I am not formally educated on debating, but will be glad to school anyone who challenges me.

Circumcision is not right.
1Devilsadvocate

Pro

Greetings.
Welcome to DDO.
I too have no formal debating education/experience, but I've learned quite a bit (both in terms of debating as well as subject matter) since joining, & if you stick around, you will too.

In this debate I will be defending the practise of circumcision. There are a host of false, dubious, & unsupported claims made about the "risks"/"dangers" of circumcision, but rather than attack straw men, I will wait to see what my opponent brings up.
In the mean time, I will discus some of the more major & significant benefits associated with circumcision.

Circumcision is a relatively simple procedure that is performed in the hospital and has few complications, especially when done with infants.
It is the most commonly done surgery in the united states, if not the world.
Approximately 60% of U.S. infants are circumcised, & approx. 1 in 3 infants world wide.
When performed with a Local anesthetic there is virtually no pain at all.
(Older patients often require general Anastasia, which does have some level of risk associated with it.)

Benefits:

Due to space I’ll focus on 2:

HIV:

About 50,000 Americans are newly infected with HIV each year. (1)

The AAP technical report on circumcision cites 14 studies which found evidence that circumcision is protective against HIV.

Circumcision Reduces Risk of AIDS Virus Infection(2) (3)


The World Health Organization/Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS - The specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) that is concerned with international public health - describes the efficacy of circumcision as "proved beyond reasonable doubt".(4)

Male circumcision significantly reduced the incidence of HIV in three clinical trials. (5)

3 randomized trials have evaluated male circumcision for prevention of sexually transmitted infections. The trials found that circumcision decreases HIV acquisition by 53% to 60%. (6) (7)


Cancer:

The risk of cancer of the penis in an uncircumcised man is one in 600 in the U.S. (8) (9)


The most recent American Cancer Society estimates for penile cancer in the United States are for 2012: (10)
About 1,570 new cases of penile cancer will be diagnosed.
About 310 men will die of penile cancer.

Note regarding the following statistics, that a large majority of Americans are circumcised.
(About 80% - http://en.wikipedia.org......)
"In five major studies in the USA, starting in 1932 [13], not one man with invasive penile cancer had been circumcised neonatal [3]. Another report noted 50,000 cases of penile cancer in the USA from 1930 to 1990, resulting in 10,000 deaths [14]. Only 10 of the cases occurred in circumcised men, but all of these men had been circumcised later in life. Penile cancer is in fact so rare in a man circumcised in infancy, that when it does occur it can be the subject of a published case report [15]. The finite residual risk is greater in those circumcised after the newborn period but is still less than for men who are not circumcised [16]." (11)

The Point Is - CIRCUMCISION CAN & DOES SAVE LIVES.

It should be noted that if an uncircumcised man chooses to have the procedure done later in life, it will be more complex, (painful) and dangerous, than it would be for a newborn. (12)


I'd like to just close with some select words from the article written by A. M. Viens, in The international journal of medical ethics:

Medical professionals, especially those engaged in setting policy such as bioethicists, must take as their starting point the fact that reasonable people will disagree about what is valuable and what is harmful. They have an obligation to construct institutional norms and policies that do not presuppose or enforce a particular moral or political doctrine. There is a need to differentiate between rituals and practices that are in fact grievously harmful and those which relate to the enhancement of a child’s religious and cultural identity.

In summary, the case against allowing parents to choose whether circumcision is or is not in their son’s interest has not been conclusively made. In our pluralistic society, there will be marked diversity between reasonable conceptions of the good concerning what interventions are valuable or promote a child’s welfare. Even in contexts when such interventions are medical in nature, the potential benefits or risks associated with the child’s welfare concerns will often involve medical, social, and cultural factors. As it presently stands, there is an absence of sufficient evidence or persuasive argumentation to warrant changing the current policy—that parents should have the freedom to make an informed and well deliberated choice as to what's best for their child.

I await Cons argument, & will respond to them in the next round.

(1) http://www.cdc.gov...
(2) http://report.nih.gov...
(3) http://www.cdc.gov...
(4) http://www.who.int...
(5) http://www.nejm.org...
(6) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(7) http://www.jhsph.edu...
(8) http://www.medicinenet.com...
(9) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(10) http://www.cancer.org...
(11) http://www.hindawi.com...
(12) http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org...
Debate Round No. 1
SMAathew

Con

SMAathew forfeited this round.
1Devilsadvocate

Pro

"I am not formally educated on debating, but will be glad to school anyone who challenges me."

So much for that.

Here's my other circumcision debate which was also F.F.
http://debate.org...
In it, I address some of the negative claims made about circumcision.




Medical professionals, especially those engaged in setting policy such as bioethicists, must take as their starting point the fact that reasonable people will disagree about what is valuable and what is harmful. They have an obligation to construct institutional norms and policies that do not presuppose or enforce a particular moral or political doctrine. There is a need to differentiate between rituals and practices that are in fact grievously harmful and those which relate to the enhancement of a child’s religious and cultural identity.

In summary, the case against allowing parents to choose whether circumcision is or is not in their son’s interest has not been conclusively made. In our pluralistic society, there will be marked diversity between reasonable conceptions of the good concerning what interventions are valuable or promote a child’s welfare. Even in contexts when such interventions are medical in nature, the potential benefits or risks associated with the child’s welfare concerns will often involve medical, social, and cultural factors. As it presently stands, there is an absence of sufficient evidence or persuasive argumentation to warrant changing the current policy—that parents should have the freedom to make an informed and well deliberated choice as to what's best for their child.Medical professionals, especially those engaged in setting policy such as bioethicists, must take as their starting point the fact that reasonable people will disagree about what is valuable and what is harmful. They have an obligation to construct institutional norms and policies that do not presuppose or enforce a particular moral or political doctrine. There is a need to differentiate between rituals and practices that are in fact grievously harmful and those which relate to the enhancement of a child’s religious and cultural identity.


Debate Round No. 2
SMAathew

Con

SMAathew forfeited this round.
1Devilsadvocate

Pro

Extend.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
Not cool, Con.

Pro, I'm almost tempted to debate you on this just so that you can have someone not forfeit!
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
AMEN!

& if con does F.F., I hope he does it before I put tons of hours of work into the debate.
Last time was such a let down.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
Hopefully this time your opponent doesn't forfeit, Pro! Looking forward to a lively debate on the subject.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
SMAathew1DevilsadvocateTied
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: Conduct to pro because con FF's. Arguments to pro because he is the only one that provides arguments. Pro also provides sources, while con does not. S&G is good on both sides.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
SMAathew1DevilsadvocateTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Not cool, Con.