I accept the logic in your first sentence, but the resolution is definite in my mind. Natural is better. You know the old saying don't fool with mother nature. It's a cultural atavism. If we have to mark babies by cutting, maybe the tip of the ear like when a stray cat is neutered or spayed.Personally, I think only a man who has experienced sex bith with and without a foreskin can really comment, and even then, it will be a very personal opinion. I think the most objective thing anybody can say on the subject, is that one is different from the other, and that the subject has been beaten to death without any real definitive resolution.
I personally like the look of a cut cock ... I just find it more aesthetically pleasing. That said, like anything else in life, we shouldn't push our aesthetic preferences on others. And, seeing as the medical justifications for circumcision are flimsy, overstated, or based on questionable correlational research, I would go as far as to say that circumcision is a cosmetic surgery, and comestic surgery on child is, in my opinion, unethical. If you want to get circumcised as an adult -- for whatever reason -- go for it.
So which is better? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
..don't really know because I got trimmed at birth. Hate it man, really. It might feel different, overly sensitive and all, but man do I wish I was all natural. A nice big foreskin.
I envy you guys who have 'em..
bravesoldier~