>>4486798It's not about who's a better person as a result of their cock being in a certain state, uncircumcised or otherwise. That's a painfully unintelligent case to make. The important aspect is which state is better for your general health and well-being, physically and psychologically.
If some people feel better with a foreskin-less cock, then they should be free to remove it at their own accord. They should NOT, however, be forced to have it removed as a child, having no say in the matter. Such things should be done as a result of one's own careful consideration, not as a result of some neolithic, misguided attempt to prevent masturbation. That's the psychological aspect taken care of.
As far as physical health benefits, that's somewhat murkier waters. I don't very much like murky waters, especially not when I'm typing from my bed on a sunday morning. I will say this much: Beneficial to your health or not, a circumcision is irreversible save for a few instances. That's one reason for not performing one on a child unless it has clear health benefits about which the large majority of science concur; which they do not. Secondly, the human body is a marvellous piece of biology in so many ways. Many of its distinctive characteristics are there to serve a specific purpose, as dictated by millennia of evolution. To deem the foreskin a mistake of evolution seems a bit... "brave"... in my opinion. I'm not one to back down from an argument, but even I know better than to pick a fight with nature. It tends to be right... If one is born with a foreskin, chances are it serves a legitimate purpose which is beneficial to the owner of said foreskin, and as such shouldn't be removed at the dicretion of the owner's guardians.
