Accuracy is very important. However, the difference between being slightly off (doing the math at 50% instead of 51.5%) and using data that is totally incomplete (The NYT 32%, because it states specifically that it is only insurance covered hospital circumcisions done immediately after delivery, which leaves out a very large number of circumcisions. No self-pays, no office circs, no circs done after the hospital stay, no ritual circumcisions) is huge.
I am NOT arguing that circumcision should be acceptable or done a lot or anything. I'm saying to argue with the most accurate data you can provide. When it comes to circumcision, a lot of that data is kinda shakey, like the number of deaths because of circumcision or the number of children actually circumcised. If you want to nitpick, Dan, because I'm not participating in circumcision discussion the way you think I should, you're welcome to it. I'm trying to argue for a more effective, more accurate circumcision debate. Because I am more worried about little boys not being needlessly operated on than I am about trying to make everyone who thinks differently feel bad. Yes, there are some people who are swayed by being told that circumcision is mutilation, but it's SUCH a small number that the number of people turned off by that tactic make it worthless. Circumcision won't be stopped with legislation or bans. It will stop when insurance quits covering it, physicians are more educated about the intact penis and it's care, and the population is made more aware that their cultural bias against leaving a child whole are based in fiction. It's not going to stop when you get in someones face and tell them they're mutilating or victimizing their children.
So, again, if it makes you uncomfortable that I don't argue circumcision the way you think I should, maybe you should think about that instead of trying to attack everything I say. This (Your posts seem subtly discouraging to our message of "no routine infant circumcision". I've noticed this several times. Are you sure you aren't here gathering intell for some other site?) is still bothering me...'if you're not 100% lockstep with us, then you're against us', I suppose.