yurell wrote:If you have a problem with the methodology to select those people, state it. We can't interview every single person who has been circumcised and has the ability to tell whether there's been any loss of sensitivity. How large a study of randomly-chosen people would it take for you to accept the results?
Again, it's not about sample size, it's about methodology. I don't know whose methodology is incorrect, but if they're getting contradictory results, somebody's methodology is.
And there we have it! People who are uncomfortable with their foreskins can choose to have them removed. Those who have theirs sliced off can't choose to have it reattached. So why should we assume that everyone would be okay with having their foreskin removed in an irreversible procedure when we can just wait to find out?
Because adult circumcision carries substantially more risks, for one thing.
Your mastery of the English language continues to impress me, although perhaps you missed the part where saying something "is as bad" as something else is not the same as saying "is identical in every respect". No, your parents did not rape you, I take your word for that, however, what is wrong with my analogy? If you object to it so vehemently, why don't you explain why it's bad instead of whinging at me to stop using it?
You'll notice I did use "as bad as." And no, your poor emotional-appeal analogy does not warrant a counter-argument because it wasn't an argument.
There's no evidence that not cutting off people's foreskins is hurting anyone, now they both have the same justification! So clearly "there's no evidence that it hurts anybody" is not useful as the sole justification.
I have no problem with parents not circumcising their children. But here we're just splitting hairs. The full reason (and legitimate reason) for circumcising can simply be "it harms nobody and I felt like it."
There are downsides to doing it, though, such as infections, pain, death, mental anguish, irreparable bodily damage, loss of sensation ...
You've yet to demonstrate that that most of those phenomena actually exist as the result of circumcision, and then obviously it hasn't been shown that they outweigh the health benefits. But, like I said, even if they don't, any risk greater than 0 is not justification for overriding parental discretion.
You were just saying that whether or not there is a loss of sensation is disputed, and now you're assuming there's definitely not a loss of sensation? You're the one who's so fond of refusing to allow the opposition to use an argument that you don't concede, so where the hell do you get off on this double-standard?
Sorry, I was unclear. The loss of sensation in adults is disputed. I was making the argument that, even if there's a loss of sensation in adults, if there are fewer nerve endings in children then there is no loss of sensation as there was never any relative sensation, and thus the perception of sex is exactly the same for adults never circumcised and adults circumcised at birth.
And when does one tend to get STD's? When they're old enough to consent to sex. Wait, the ability to consent, this seems familiar ...
I'm not sure I get how you're making that connection.
So you think it's alright to cut a child just for aesthetics? I disagree most strongly on a moral level.
If done with anesthetic in a societally acceptable and safe area, yes.
Unless you're being deliberately obtuse, you were the one who suggested that it must be shown to be harmful to be banned, so I was giving examples of things which are banned but not proven to be harmful, thereby demostrating that it does not need to be positively proven to be harmful to be banned.
Sorry, that wasn't in direct response to those examples. In general, we should not ban things by default. We have to have a reasonable belief that there's risk involved. Otherwise, every single thing that nobody has particularly looked into would be banned. A new book comes out? Could be harmful to mental health, it's banned until further review. A new sport being played? Well we don't know if it's safe, so we ban it. Clearly a certain standard of evidence needs to be met before we ban something, and circumcision does not meet that standard because it does not meet any standard of evidence.
All the arguments that I've made thusfar, and perhaps a little thing known as 'right to bodily autonomy'.
Minors do not have a right to bodily autonomy, at least not as much as adults. Nor should they: if a parent tells his child to eat his vegetables, the child should not have legal grounds to object. The arguments that you've made thusfar rely on those givens being false, which they are demonstrably not.