Originally Posted by Ligeia
Please explain why it is off. Remember that the primary purpose of that argument was to suggest that the two reasons he had provided in support of circumcision worked just as well for a pinky finger, and yet he considers removing a pinky finger to be ridiculous.
What would you call removing hundreds of nerve endings that compliment the function of the penis? Reduced functionality seems like a perfectly accurate description to me.
You don't need foreskin for the every day functions of life.
Losing a pinky would require you to adjust all kinds of aspects of your life. You might not be able to do some of the things you could before.
I'm not sure what your sources are, but from what I've read there has been a ton of clinical studies done on penile sensitivity and most of them show very little difference between uncircumcised and circumcised.