Healthcare is a merit good (so it has benefits that exceed the amount it costs), and so it should be avaliable to as many people as possible.

And if a Government can provide is universally, then that means that it can be provided to as many people possible.

However, I'm not 100% sure on whether it's a right, or not.

whoa whoa whoa, how do uncircumcized males enjoy sex more?

I think the better question is whether healthcare should be a right or not.

Right.

Kasz and I are very much on the same page politicly. I agree with him 100%.

As for the part I bolded, while that sounds sad, it's not protected by there rights. If a poor person without health insurance went to the hospital and needed heart surgery, he would get it. That's a right.

He would then be required to pay for it, and if he couldn't, he would go into financial ruin. He would have to file bankruptcy or if he has filed already, find another way to deal with his financial problems.

Now, you don't think it's fair that he has to struggle financially. I say he didn't have to. He could have worked towards a quality of life that would have put him in position not to be financially ruined. It's not hard to find a job in the US where you can get health insurance. Hell, work at McDonnell's and buy there corporate plan.

His financial status being in good standing is not a right. Healthcare to save his life is all he gets. And regardless of his financial standing, he will always get it.

Some things need to be the responsibility of the individual.

Privilege.

There are thousands of nerve endings in the sensitive foreskin, which is part of the sexually pleasurable organ known as the penis.  Those get removed during circumcision.

It's like cutting off a chunk of your tongue and losing thousands of taste buds.  Food will never taste the same.  If we cut the tips off the tongues of our babies, they would grow up having never tasted the way we taste, and they'd never know the difference.  That's what circumcised penises are like.

Also, the foreskin provides for a gliding process, which means you need less lubrication, which means the skin tears less, which is better protection for both the penis and the vagina during sex.  So it also feels better due to a lower frequency of minor injuries.

All the sources I have looked into (after reading this thread, I never thought about it until now) have stated that there is no conclusive evidence in the debate.  Some argue that uncircumsized men find sex more pleasureable, some have said that circumcized men actually find sex more pleasurable, and some say that it has no bearing.

How would the amount of nerve endings present make it more pleasurable?  Wouldn't a bigger penis then mean that sex is more pleasureable, (if it was sheer amount of nerve endings that makes it pleasurable) since the penis would be bigger and there would be more nerve endings?

All I know is that, whenever I start to watch a porno, and I see an uncircumsized penis come out, its an instaboner killer.

Why do most porn stars have circumsized penises?

It might be a hard thing to study.  If somebody has something wrong with their penis that makes sex painful, and then they get a circumcision, then sex would feel better, but that could be due to the problem going away, not the foreskin going away.  This is anecdotal, but the few people I know who got circumcised later in life, and without having penis problems beforehand actually regret getting circumcised.  They're trying to stretch their skin out to get it back.  It's cheap and safe but takes a looooooooooong time.  Also, comparing levels of satisfaction is really subjective and tricky anyway, and there are all those people who can have orgasms just from having a single sexual thought, or touching their nipple and stuff.  But there definitely is a large amount of nerve endings that are in the foreskin.  Penises are designed to feel good when you play with them, and the foreskin is part of that.

I'm not against circumcision though.  I'm only against circumcision of people without their consent, like babies for example.  There is no reason to do it to a baby.  They should have the choice.

And for your question about circumcised porn stars, a majority of men in the U.S. are circumcised, so not only are there more circumcised men old enough to work in porn, the majority of men viewing porn are like you, so they want to see penises just like theirs.  It's easier to fantasize that way, when the penis looks like yours and you can relate to it.  When it looks too different, it's too apparent that you're staring at another man's penis instead of fantasizing about your own.  It kills the mood.  Circumcised men are the biggest target market of the American porn industry.  Since the frequency of circumcision has been decreasing in the U.S. for decades, we can expect to see a rise in uncircumcised American porn stars in the future.

Why is this an anti-circumcision thread? I know you've provided reasons Rubang, but you have this insane hatred for circumcision and this isn't the first thread where you've shown it. There are a bunch of things babies have to go through which they don't agree with. Babies get vaccinations against their consent for diseases they have ridiculously small chances of ever even contacting, and there's no doubt that the shots hurt a lot. The whole point of circumcision is that nobody cares about babies or what they think and that the people who control society make the decisions. Ask a newborn if they want a circumcision and see how they respond.

The whole circumcision debate is silly and both sides twist facts. Circumcision will prevent AIDS according to one side, and ruin a man's sexual experiences forever according to another.