again, there is a long list of things that nature gets sooooo wrong at a consistent rate, even though it shouldn't be there or isn't really necessary, unless you have some sort of explanation as to why foreskin is much less of a "mistake" compared to say an appendix in today's man.
Sorry, missed your response-it's been a while
Appendixes can rupture for apparently no cause and often enough to warrant people having them removed. Foreskin doesn't seem to exhibit, with any notable regularity, the tendency to be life-threatening despite safe and clean living. An appendix can do that so I have to reject that comparison, can you convince me to rethink that?
Okay so aside from that, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that if we use the argument that foreskin is naturally occurring then it doesn't mean squat because we could, from various perspectives, take the approach that nature gets it wrong all the time.
Let me know if that's what you're stating and then I am ready to agree with that it is true, we COULD do that but it would be silly to use that line of reasoning in this case.
Just to make sure we don't go down the road of disease or virus, I have to state that those are not consistent, those are mutations due to contact with other organisms and not even statistically in the same galaxy as a healthy baby boy born with all his bits and pieces where they ought to be. I don't know what you could be talking about that is as frequently occurring and unencumbering to pull your logic through but I am curious to find out.