No, i mean just remove part of it because the infection risk would be lessened, no sowing labia together nor removing the clitoris (though a lot of things assemble under the clitoral hood so i assume we should cut that off too, easier to keep clean).
Then it would fall under my category of morally neutral, along with tattoos, scarification, circumcision, and earlobe stretching.
Note also that supposed health benefits have nothing to do with my argument. My argument is pretty simple: As long as this doesn't harm the kid's body in a way that causes longterm suffering or loss of normal function, then I don't think it is ethically wrong.
Note also, that such a modification would have to be culturally acceptable, common, or mandated in order to fit my criteria.
https://www.cpsbc.ca/files/u6/Circumcision-Infant-Male.pdf
The sensitivity of the glans problem is obvious, with a thicker skin you get less sensitivity, this isn't up for debate.
That link is broken for me. I tried to search the website, but no luck.
I browsed the internet with the googled "circumcised vs uncircumcised sensitivity". Literally every other hit claimed either that circumcised men were just as sensitive as uncircumcised men, or that uncircumcised men were more sensitive than uncircumcised men.
There is unfortunately not a consensus.
I didn't say they had problems with sexual abilities nor did i say they had problems getting aroused (which is mainly psychological) what i said was that there IS a loss of function. Lessened sensitivity IS a loss of function all in itself.
I'm not sure I agree that such a loss of sensitivity-- should it be shown to occur-- should adequately be considered a loss of function. The problem for your argument is simply the fact that most circumcised men seem to be perfectly happy with their sexual abilities, do not report feeling as if they are missing some ability, and seem to have a more than adequate level of sensitivity. I am not completely unpersuaded, though.
