The Instigator
TheMarketLibertarian
Pro (for)
The Contender
Iamnotareligiousnutjob
Con (against)

Male Circumcision is ethically no different from Female 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Iamnotareligiousnutjob has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,155 times Debate No: 102281
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (26)
Votes (0)

 

TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

The resolution is that Male Circumcision is ethically no different from Female Genital Mutilation. This will be with regards to the reasons, effects, and justifications for the respective practises. I will defend the resolution, and the BOP is on me to prove that:
1. The reasons for Male Circumcision, generally, are no different than those for Female Circumcision
2. That the Effects are for the most part similar respectively.
3. That the justifications provided for either are interchangeable, and the practicioners of both use the same justifications as the other in general.

My opponent, on the other hand, must prove that FGM is 'totally different' from MGM, he/she must prove that:
1. Male Circumcision is done for different reasons, (plural) than FGM
2. Male Circumcision has completely different effects, (plural) than FGM.
or,
3. That the justificatins, (plural) for MGM are different than those for FGM.

Male Circumcision, or MGM, Male Genital Mutilation, shall be defined as the removal of the foreskin, frenulum, and riggid band of a male- specifically of a minor.
Female Circumcision, or FGM, Female Genital Mutilation, shall be defined as any of the following:
Type I: Also known as clitoridectomy, this type consists of partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or its prepuce.

Type II: Also known as excision, the clitoris and labia minora are partially or totally removed, with or without excision of the labia majora.

Type III: The most severe form, it is also known as infibulation or pharaonic type. The procedure consists of narrowing the vaginal orifice with creation of a covering seal by cutting and appositioning the labia minora and/or labia majora, with or without removal of the clitoris. The appositioning of the wound edges consists of stitching or holding the cut areas together for a certain period of time (for example, girls’ legs are bound together), to create the covering seal. A small opening is left for urine and menstrual blood to escape. An infibulation must be opened either through penetrative sexual intercourse or surgery.

Type IV: This type consists of all other procedures to the genitalia of women for non-medical purposes, such as pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization
Iamnotareligiousnutjob

Con

yes it is
Debate Round No. 1
TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

You had better not be a troll, let's get this nightmare over with:
My burden of proof is that:
1. The reasons for Male Circumcision, generally, are no different than those for Female Circumcision
2. That the Effects are for the most part similar respectively.
3. That the justifications provided for either are interchangeable, and the practicioners of both use the same justifications as the other in general.

As such, I will now proceed to prove each of these burdens.

I. THAT THE REASONS FOR MALE CIRCUMCISION, GENERALLY, ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THOSE FOR FEMALE CIRCUMCISION:
As the title states, we will be analysing the reasons provided for Male Circumcision, and compare them to those for Female Circumcision i the effort of proving that they are virtually the same. For this purpopse, I will be using the first website that came up when I googled 'reasons for circumcision.' {1}

RELIGIOUS REASONS
My source states:
"Circumcision is a religious or cultural ritual for many Jewish and Islamic families, as well as certain aboriginal tribes in Africa and Australia."


Likewise, Female Genital Mutuilation is donefor religious or cultural reasons as well:
"

FGM is seen as part of a girl’s initiation into womanhood and as an intrinsic part of a community’s cultural heritage. - See more at: http://www.unfpa.org...

FGM is seen as part of a girl’s initiation into womanhood and as an intrinsic part of a community’s cultural heritage. - See more at: http://www.unfpa.org...

FGM is seen as part of a girl’s initiation into womanhood and as an intrinsic part of a community’s cultural heritage. - See more at: http://www.unfpa.org...

FGM is seen as part of a girl’s initiation into womanhood and as an intrinsic part of a community’s cultural heritage... Although FGM is not endorsed by either Islam or by Christianity, supposed religious doctrine is often used to justify the practice." {2}

HYGEINIC REASONS:
My source states:
"Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis."

Likewise, Female Genital Mutilation is done for hygeinic reasons as well:
"

In some communities, the external female genitalia are considered dirty and ugly and are removed, ostensibly to promote hygiene and aesthetic appeal. - See more at: http://www.unfpa.org...

In some communities, the external female genitalia are considered dirty and ugly and are removed, ostensibly to promote hygiene and aesthetic appeal."

HEALTH BENEFITS:
My source states:
"Decreased risk of urinary tract infections... Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections... Prevention of penile problems... Decreased risk of penile cancer."

Of course, all of these are bullsh*t, but that is not what this debate is about- the Muslims claim that there are health benefiots to Female Genital Mutilation as well. {3} Thus meaning that I have fulfilled my first burden of proof.

II. THAT THE EFFECTS ARE FOR THE MOST PAT SIMILAR RESPECTIVELY:
The US National Librarty of Medicine, of the National Institutes of Health states:
"The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis." {4}

The effectualm equivolent of Male Circumcision would be the removal of the clitoris, the most sensitiove part of the female genitalia. Furthermore, the British Journal of Urology states:
"Circumcision also ablates junctional mucosa that appears to be an important component of the overall sensory mechanism of the human penis." {5}

In conclusion, it is an undeniable fact that circumcision destroys highly errogenous tissue as well as the majority of a males sexual pleasure. A common response to this is that FGM destroyts all of a females ability to feel pleasur, whereas circumcised men can still feel pleasure- but this is simply innacurate. Female Gernital Mutilation, though siginifiucantly damagiong to female sexual pleasure, very rarely does it completely destroy it. {6}

III. THAT THE JUSTIFICATIONS PROVIDED FOR EITHER ARE INTERCHANGEABLE, AND THE PRACTITIONERS OF BOTH USE THE SAME JUSTIFICATIONS AS THE OTHER IN GENERAL:
This BOP[ deals with the excuses and justifications for MGM and FGM, as opposed to the reasons why they are done. As such, it will respond to the excuses people provide for Male Genital Mutilation, and compare them to those of Female Genital Mutilation.

#1. "The AAP said that the benefits outweigh the risks."

Justlike with Female Genital Mutilation- the same excuse is provided:
"Most people who practice FGC recognize its costs—they just think the benefits outweigh them." {7}

#2. "The decision should be up to the parents."

The same excuse is provided by peoiple who mutilate their daughters genitals.

#3. "It's an Islamic tradition, so there's nothing wrong with it."

This specific one was provided by that Muslim b*tch who was recently arrested for mutilating young girls- likewise Male Geniotal Mutilation is a Jewish and Islamic ritual too- and Jews and Muslims use this excuse all the time.

CONCLUSION:
People claim that FGM is 'totally different' from MGM, but to be honest- I fail to see any fundamental moral difference between cutting a girls vagina against her will and cutting a boys penis against his will, and thus fr I have more than fulfilled my BOP as to why the two are exactly the same.

{1}. http://www.mayoclinic.org...
{2}. http://www.mayoclinic.org...
{3}. https://islamqa.info...
{4}. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
{5}. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
{6}. https://www.womenonwaves.org...
{7}. https://www.theatlantic.com...
{8}.
Iamnotareligiousnutjob

Con

u suck nobody cares about u
Debate Round No. 2
TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

that's great you';re a troll.,
Iamnotareligiousnutjob

Con

usuck nobody cares about ur shet
Debate Round No. 3
TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

eat a rag
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 1 year ago
TheUnexaminedLife
No, no they weren't. It was based on the tradition of contrarianism of which Locke was an exponent of. As a Scottish thinker, Locke had more impact on the US Constitution (because the USA was originally an English colony). Unsurprisingly, the French Declaration was mainly influenced by French Enlightenment philosophers like Rousseau's contrarianism, which is certainly different to Locke's with much less emphasis on property rights and more on the general unity of the people.
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 1 year ago
TheMarketLibertarian
The French Declaration as well as all other Enlightenment documents are based on John Locke.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 1 year ago
TheUnexaminedLife
I thought you said French declaration? How was I to know we were debating Lockean contrarianism? His entire political philosophy here is predicated on our supposed natural rights to life, liberty and property assuming a cause and effect relation where each individual has an essential quality they possess... I've read parts of the Second Treatise and Lockean philosophy; it would take another debate entirely to defend/attack it
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 1 year ago
TheMarketLibertarian
"But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 1 year ago
TheUnexaminedLife
And, I disagree with that referential definition of freedom seeing the added the condition of non-injury as unfounded. From where does it follow that liberty necessarily must not injure others; I understand reasons for its use in a governmental system, just not the philosophical logic of the definition.
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 1 year ago
TheMarketLibertarian
No, because freedom only refers to actions that do not harm others- there are no limits on it because that which is prohibited by it is not liberty, and does not count.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 1 year ago
TheUnexaminedLife
I see you ignored all the other points aside my concluding statement...
What I was trying to communicate was that in its definition of freedom (liberty) that quote was simultaneously drawing boundaries for what freedom can be. It adds that condition of non-injury to other parties which in my view is a restriction on action which can be separated from this notion of freedom. Liberty isn't a measure; an action doesn't become more free if it doesn't harm someone. A thermometer can only measure heat. Liberty can exist exclusively to the proposition 'it is wrong to injure someone else'.

Saying, 'equality is everything being of equal value providing it is of the same species'... is really saying all members of a species are equal. The quote was saying that all actions that don't harm others are free which I think doesn't follow from a common definition of 'liberty'.
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 1 year ago
TheMarketLibertarian
Unrestricted liberty means the right to do anything that doesn't harm another- it only refers to those things that do not injure another person, to say that it must include things that injure others to not contradict itself is just stupid. It's like if I said that a thermometer can be used to record information from those things that have to do with heat, and you say that it is a contradiction because it must record everything, "that quote is a contradiction, it reads- 'thermometers have the ability to measure everything, having to do with heat,' either thermometers record everything or nothing." Then you try to use a thermometer to record the speed of an object, and when it fails, say that my theory is false.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 1 year ago
TheUnexaminedLife
Marion Young's article, 'Throwing Like a Girl' argues that raising someone a gender can debilitate them as they build their identities around gender stereotypes thereby limiting the behaviours they are expected to do (e.g. sport is not considered feminine, therefore those raised to be feminine in generally will be physically weaker).

I think that's murder again? Deferring to Enlightenment legislature means that you assume some universal human rights, namely liberty, which the onus is on you to defend. I can't argue against you without knowing why exactly you believe every child owns their body.
Also, that quote is a direct contradiction. It reads: 'liberty is the ability to do everything, except this'. Either freedom is unconditioned or it is restricted by society and its norms.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.