BattleMoose wrote:Further, it is the responsibility of those in favor of circumcision to demonstrate that it has no effect on sensitivity. Continuing despite the lack of data is inappropriate.
Wrong. I've explained about twice that the burden of proof is on the person wanting to override parental discretion. This would be correct to recommend it as a medical procedure, but we're not making an argument about whether it's medically beneficial.
And as I have explained, with reference to the Convention on the Rights of the Child
holds the best interest of the child as being paramount and if there is an issue regarding potential harm, it is incumbent on those performing the action to show that no harm is being caused.
For the most part anecdotal evidence is largely what we have to go on and a lot of anecdotal evidence suggests that there is a loss of sensitivity relating to male circumcision. Now we can dismiss anecdotal evidence if we have quantified data but we don't so we can't. We should also not just accept anecdotal evidence either but we should certainly be open to it and investigate further. Now there is no doubt in my mind that there is a strong link but I cannot make the assertion that male infant circumcision effects sensitivity.
Anecdotal evidence is equally unclear. I have heard both anecdotes of people saying they lost sensitivity after circumcision and people saying they have gained sensitivity. We do have data, but it's contradictory.[/quote]
This is only relevant to adult circumcision, which is not the issue.
No, they are issues and they will be brought up.
They've been dismissed as irrelevant, is my point.
No, you have dismissed them, inappropriately I might add.
Also, there are people who do feel violated about involuntary circumcision or are just angry that they were, they are real and not hard to find and are certainly not anecdotal.
Er... yes they are? Unless you have a study showing what percentage of males feel exactly what ways about their circumcision.[/quote]
I am arguing that there is the potential to do harm. One such individual is enough to demonstrate that harm can be caused. You are now entering the mirky grey area where you are willing to accept a low possibility to cause harm, I won't go there, not without consent.
BattleMoose wrote:But it is falsifiable. Take a huge sample of males, touch their penises in different ways and get qualified descriptions of sensations and we will get our answer. Welcome to the social sciences.
With that method, we have contradictory data. There are studies suggesting both that circumcised males have better sex and others suggesting that they have worse.[/quote]
This is actually not about the quality of sex being achieved, but about sensitivity. And if there is contradictory data, the response is bigger sample, always a bigger sample until we hit statistical significance or no trend.
Also, can you please list these studies being linked, I actually couldn't find any on google scholar relating sensitivity to circumcision, albeit not looking very hard.