I don't have to refute that removal of the foreskin has a health value of lowering STD transmission rates. It does. Just like I'm not refuting that removing the penis entirely is even MORE effective. I'm arguing that it is an unnecessary procedure BECAUSE there are more effective and less invasive means. We are not arguing the effectiveness of a given action but rather the necessity. YOU simply want to argue whether or not an action is effective which is not just a bad argument it's illogical and specious. Face it, you can't win this argument because outside of a religious practice it is unnecessary.