Firefox just crashed on me, eliminating my lengthy and irritated response to P3t3r, so, I just wanted to give you all this.How not to argue about circumcision.
P3t3r, in leui of me retyping that whole thing to you, I'll just summarize:
AMPITT (As mentioned previously in this thread), you should read this thread some more, and maybe even the previous thread, or the one before that. You are making incredibly foolish mistakes in your argumentation, all these topics have been hashed and rehashed, and there is more than ample evidence countering each and every single one of your claims.
Sorry but this site isn't neutral at all,I give you credit for trying to appear balanced, but like most pro-circumcision types, this website make circumcision sound like the way to go. Why should I give it any sort of credit when you refuse to do so for the links I've posted earlier ?
You blamed me for choosing studies from "circumcisionisbad.com" But the link you provided comes from "circumcisionisgood.com".
Anyway I still decided to take a look at your source and obviously when it comes to intellectual masturbation, this website is king : long and boring with no proof behind their claims. They blame anti circumcision for their anecdotes, equivocations, question-begging, and many more such errors abound in their replies. But it is exactly what they are doing. Let's take a few
examples from their arguments :
"the foreskin may
rather constitute a modest threat "
"the benefit of circumcision to an individual may
be greater than the benefit of immunization is to that individual where herd immunity obtains."
"that parents may
, subject to certain constraints, make decisions on behalf of their incompetent offspring."
"it is reasonable to assume
that it can be adequately controlled after circumcision."
"This is because more than enough erogenous tissue may
remain to facilitate the same degree of sexual pleasure."
be more than one acceptable decision. We have suggested
that circumcision falls into the latter category. "
These aren't solid scientific arguments but an endless list of hypothesis/assumptions supporting circumcision with no real evidence behind it : It may be, we suggest that, we assume, it can be, it might or might not , it is possible that etc. And at the end of the article they dare say : "What is needed when engaging this  is a cool and impartial examination of the evidence
and a careful analysis"
Not to mention many mistakes and very strange positions they defend. A few examples
As regards mutilation :
"Consent is irrelevant to that (limited) point "
Wooaa...I can't believe they think mutilation has nothing to do with consent. It's obvious for me that if a woman is choosing labiaplasty it's cosmetic surgery. But if another woman is forced to undergo labia minora amputation against her will, this is genital mutilation. Consent does matter especially when it comes to genital surgery.
"There is considerable controversy over the sexual effects of circumcision. Anti-circumcision groups claim significant detrimental effects, though offer only anecdotal evidence."
This isn't true, I've posted a study from the British Journal of Urology International. This isn't an anti circumcision group but a respectful organization. And there's scientifc evidence explaining the impact of circumcison from a sexual point of view.
"We defended the view that parents have the right to authorize some medical interventions for their children even in the absence of clear and immediate medical necessity "
Not true, it's rare when a medical intervention is proposed without evidence of medical necessity.
And we're talking about genital surgery, it's not a random medical intervention. What other surgeries parents are allowed to perform without clear and immediate medical necessity (except corrective surgeries) ?
"Decisions sometimes have to be made on behalf of such patients."
I agree with that but they need to explain precisely why circumcision fits into that category. Even if the benefits of circumcision were true, this is a procedure that can be delayed later.
"the beneficial nature of circumcision suggests that the benefit is greatest when circumcision is performed in infancy."
Another suggestion zzzzzzz ...There is no scientific evidence that circumcision is safer for babies.
"Transforming from the uncircumcised to the circumcised state will have psychological and other costs for an adult that are absent for a child"
No, there's no evidence that these psychological costs are absent for children. In fact there are studies claiming it does have impact and many anecdotal evidence on mothering forum.
"An infants suffer no embarrassment from circumcision"
No or at least they need solid evidence if they want to support that claim and not their endless list of hypothesis : it is possible that it might be etc...
"Second, it is far from clear that non-circumcision leaves open a future person's options in every regard"
Yes it is clear. If an uncircumcised doesn't like his foreskin (which is rare by the way) he can choose the proceudre for himself later in life the exact same way a woman can opt for a labiaplasty. Period. I agree there is an uncomfortable healing process for a couple of weeks afterward but that's not the end off the world. However if a man doesn't like his circumcised penis, there's not a lo he can do about that.
"Moreover, he ignores our argument that a cost-benefit calculus is not simply a matter of weighing medical evidence. Personal values affect the equation."
I agree with this especially the personal value. Personal means the person himself and the owner of the penis is the more appropriate person to solve this equation.
"male circumcision has sometimes been employed in an attempt to curb male sexuality, while it has also been thought to enhance sexual pleasure."
There's no evidence that circumcision has been employed in an attempt to enhance sexual pleasure.