Thread:User talk:WaitingforGodot/Quick question for you.../reply (10)

Here's the thing. You're claiming that the "scientific and medical community" looked at those studies, they found them fatally flawed. If that's the case, why are all these scientific and medical organizations still advocating the practice? If the studies were fatally flawed ala Andrew Wakefield (since you claimed that they took money from religious groups with an agenda), then why haven't the scientists lost their medical licences, the studies been retracted, etc.? You're basically claiming that they are fatally flawed, positing a bunch of reasons why with no citations (and other anti-circ pages citing them don't count as citations. I want serious evidence from an unbiased, credible source showing why they are flawed), and then going off and making nonsensical analogies about cutting off breasts, which is just ridiculous- that is nothing like what I am proposing so please stop attacking strawmen.

As to "all else being equal", we'e not discussing all else being equal. We're discussing whether or not it's acceptable to use this as a way to slow the spread of a disease that is causing millions of deaths a year because evidence shows that it would help. I don't think many people would prefer to have a foreskin and also have HIV as opposed to having neither. Sure, condoms and education help better, but that is an approach that has been tried for years, and it certainly doesn't seem to be dropping transmission rates to US levels. The point is, while education may well be a "better" solution, it's also a long-term solution- and people are dying now. There's no reason why we shouldn't do everything in our power to stop deaths just because you feel a bit squeamish about it.