Posted on 08/16/2006 5:49:00 PM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo
ping
Oy Vey...
Should most anything be shown to be effective...
Before seeing this article posted with the quotation marks, I had read that Bill Clinton strongly advised that circumcision was effective in preventing AIDS. I now see that is far what from he actually said.
If one wanted to seriously tackle the problem of the spread of AIDS in parts of Africa, they would expose the cultural practice that requires the wife to have sex with her deceased husband’s brother. Some, in spite of the threat of death, practice this tradition or cultural requirement.
I wondered how such a cultural practice came to be. Perhaps it had its roots in the Bible. In particular, the Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 25:5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. The New Testament offers the same advice in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
Just a thought, but I thought I feel would be worth further examination. The roots of the practice may provide a key to a revision of the practice. An example of a possible revision may be:
If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her, unless the husband died of AIDS and then such a requirement is suspended.
Muslims also believe that male circumcision is a religious requirement. Most of the men in the world who were circumcised as a child were circumcised because their parents are Muslim.
No, male circumcision is under attack because elective non-therapeutic circumcision of boys is not medically necessary. It is under attack because circumcision cuts off a normal, healthy part of a child's genitals without a valid medical indication.
Normally doctors only perform surgery on children when the medical benefits of the surgery significantly outweigh the medical risks and harms. Infant circumcision does not even come close to meeting that standard of care.
Elective non-therapeutic circumcision of boys is a unique exception to the standard of care that doctors use for all other pediatric surgeries. It is past time for American doctors to start using the same standard of care for a boy's penis that they use of all other parts of his body and all parts of a girl's body.
The suggestion that male circumcision provides as much protection as always using a condom is A Fatal Mistake.
If a man sleeps around and has unprotected sex, he will eventually get AIDS whether he is circumcised or not.
I think this is just the pro-circumcision fanatics finding ANY excuse to fight the body of knowledge that has been established showing circumcision is strictly cosmetic.
We can prevent 100% of breast cancer by having mandatory radical mastectomies.
If an adult sexually active individual wants to cut off some nerve endings for cosmetic reasons, then as and ADULT they are free to do so. Odd how the female mutilation crowd is silent on this one...
"If a man sleeps around and has unprotected sex, he will eventually get AIDS whether he is circumcised or not." .... I have to agree with that, my jewish neighbor in Brooklyn died from aids. He was gay. I'm sure he wasn't the only one.
And most Americans are as well, because their parents were Christian.
unless he's got that genetic mutation that allowed people to survive the Black Plague. I wonder if there is a test for that?
He heard it from Jocelyn Elders (former Surgeon General and smartest doctor in the USA...!)
And most Americans are as well, because their parents were Christian.
Most Muslim parents circumcise their sons because they believe male circumcision is religious requirement for Muslims.
If American parents circumcise their sons because they believe it is a religious requirement for Christians, they are replacing almost 2,000 years of established Christian doctrine with their own modern ideas. The Book of Acts chapter 15 in the New Testament is very clear that circumcision is not a religious requirement for Christian males. Christians in Central and South American and in Europe do not circumcise their sons.
American parents circumcise their sons because American doctors introduced the practice of non-religious circumcision in the late 1800s and because American doctors promoted the practice for decades.
Non-religious circumcision was introduced in the United States in the late 1800s by medical doctors because they thought it would keep boys from masturbating.
My hunch is that future generations will view the latest medical justification for cutting the genitals of boys (to prevent AIDS) the same way that we now view the first medical justification for cutting the genitals of boys (to prevent masturbation).
This guy never gives up.
Just spreading the love, er STD, clap, herpes...........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.