Justification for neonatal male circumcision

You bring up an interesting point regarding sexual pleasure and its difficulty to be detected. As you've stated, no two people feel amounts of pleasure quite the same, thus it is subjective. This can't help but bring into question things such as bias or personal preference as well, as various studies have shown that circumcised penises are generally preferred for sexual intercourse, and that some people actually reported greater pleasure for circumcised penises rather than uncircumcised, while for others, there seemed to be no change. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]Also, I can't help but call into question the variables you mention. The first thing, regarding men who restore their foreskin, is for reasons listed above; bias. After all, if they do receive foreskin restoration, then they prefer the idea of an uncircumcised penis, meaning the pleasure received may not be in regards to whether or not there is a foreskin, but whether the male prefers to have one. I also can't help but wonder why you reference men who used dekeratinization methods, for both reasons listed above as well as fact that, as far as I'm aware, it isn't something that occurs in all men who do get circumcised, thus it's a very different factor that warrants study on its own merit, rather than in combination with circumcision as a whole.I would argue that you did infact use a fallacious argument. For one, just because it isn't the exclusive justification for your argument does not mean that justification can't be fallacious. Furthermore, I fail to see how the history of it is at all relevant to the practice of it today, as it does not provide any substantial argument against it beyond stating how it used to be bad instead of saying how it still is. Not to mention how you never presented it as any support for any arguments of yours whatsoever, but instead used it as a stand-alone argument. Recall how you established it as one of your main arguments against circumcision. You are correct in that parents do not have a right to do the things they do is not in of itself justifiable reasoning for them doing this practice. I should have expanded upon it to state that they should have a right to make decisions over their child if it is potentially medically beneficial, but not medically necessary.Firstly, I just want to point out that dailymail is not a reputable source to establish the conclusion about the Philippines. This does not mean the information is incorrect, however I just wanted to point out the fact that the news website is not a solid one to use to justify your position. Now, to counteract your point about socialist health care countries not doing circumcision I find that you provided no proof of this, and rather, according to Wikipedia, numerous countries in which there are prevalent members of their society who are circumcised also seem to have universal health care. [6, 7] Now, I am aware that countries with universal health care may not cover circumcision under said health care, however unless evidence is provided of your claim, I see no reason to assume circumcision isn't covered under this health care.You provide a fair point about it being mandatory and the costs that would come for that. However, I would argue that it is still irrelevant if evidence shows that circumcision is beneficial, and thus far the evidence does seem to.The medical benefits are not at all overstated, as you claim, as I specifically stated "potentially preventable," which listed all the deaths caused by various things that could have been potentially prevented by circumcision (this includes HPV, which you also list). Now, you also bring up the fact that pro-circ people/institutions likely wouldn't release information that would economically damage them, however you fail to take into account the validity of these studies, as if they do still prove to be beneficial in spite of what the motivation of the authors may be, then there is no reason to disregard this. Otherwise, it would be again using the genetic fallacy. Also, I'll bring up a few more sources showing that circumcision does in fact prevent STDs and other medical issues, since you provided skepticism regarding the studies conducted in foreign countries. [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14] Some of these sources also referenced protective HIV benefits from receiving neonatal circumcision, showing evidence against you saying that 'no study has come through with the full circumcised sample follow up after a reasonable follow up period.' Now, beyond that, as for your source discussing necessary factors, I first call it's validity into question, given how it comes from an anti-circumcision site. However, disregarding that fact for now, it only pointed out a few potential flaws it claimed were unaccounted for in the studies from Africa, and some of the examples you listed that claim it should be accounted for, such as 'factors that led to voluntary or involuntary circumcision' aren't particularly relevant. Others, such as sexual partners or where those being studies live, have been accounted for in various studies. It is worth noting that for homosexual sex, no substantial benefits have been noted.This certainly was a great discussion, and I admit I also had trouble as well, as there's an abundance of claims being made without providing evidence or discussing what studies have done. At this point, too, I wasn't able to substantially read through my sources to check for the factors that you have listed due to a lack of time, haha. Either way, it was an enjoyable experience. Thank you as well![1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org...[7] https://en.wikipedia.org...[8] https://www.ghdonline.org...[9] http://www.scirp.org...[10] https://ijhpr.biomedcentral.com...[11] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[12] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[13] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[14] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...