Posted on 08/23/2009 6:12:04 PM PDT by Gordon Greene
Public health officials are considering promoting routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States to reduce the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS.
The topic is a delicate one that has already generated controversy, even though a formal draft of the proposed recommendations, due out from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by the end of the year, has yet to be released.
Experts are also considering whether the surgery should be offered to adult heterosexual men whose sexual practices put them at high risk of infection. But they acknowledge that a circumcision drive in the United States would be unlikely to have a drastic impact: the procedure does not seem to protect those at greatest risk here, men who have sex with men.
Recently, studies showed that in African countries hit hard by AIDS, men who were circumcised reduced their infection risk by half. But the clinical trials in Africa focused on heterosexual men who are at risk of getting H.I.V. from infected female partners...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Lack of understanding/comprehension...isn't helpful either I'm afraid....
Here's 3 scientific study's....
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=info:tX9wmCyjFC8J:scholar.google.com/&output=viewport&pg=1&hl=en
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/3/693
http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2000&issue=10200&article=00018&type=fulltext
Let's just set the record straight for the folks here that can figure out what I did say from the beginning...and what I never said.
I did make the statement...that I circumcision has shown to reduce the chance of AIDS. Period.
I never said....I was for mandated/forced circumcision...
Not a lot I could do about it now, anyway...
Not being entirely flippant, but I expect that when science is able to grow new organs for transplant in the future, simpler parts replacement will also be available for those who might want it. That is unless Obamacare becomes law and removes too much of the profit incentive from medical research and from the services offered.
Mine left me babbling and incoherent. I wasn't able to speak in full sentences for a couple years!
Indeed. The only men who are in a position to compare are those that were circumcised after becoming sexually active. Even then a man who chose to have himself circumcised and wishes he hadn’t may refuse to admit that he regrets it.
I think their female partners should be asked as well, because there IS a difference.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=info:tX9wmCyjFC8J:scholar.google.com/&output=viewport&pg=1&hl=en
Correlation, not causation. See my earlier post. And Africa is an extremely different place that America, medically speaking. Worlds away in terms of HIV and AIDS and behaviors and medical context.
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/3/693
Mere correlation easily explained by other factors. (The most superstitious primitives don’t circumcise, and also have sex practices that lead to AIDS, while the more modern cultures have more circumcision and more civilized sex practices. Or if you want a simple explanation, lack of access to medical advice and treatment correlates well with both AIDS and non-circumcision, even if those two things are entirely unrelated.
Not a study, but a literature review. Found only association. See above.
See how interesting it is when you don’t accept “studies” unquestioningly?
I knew when I posted the studies...you would disagree. Go back and read my ORIGINAL post.
The FACT is you projected thoughts and deeds on me...that was flat out B.S. and any objective person could see that.
I've been pretty civil about this, and will refrain from dropping down to whatever level you are on....but like I said, I'm done with you.
You will have the last word.
Take it away, beelze.
: )
You made what you thought was the best decision for your son. My wife and I made the opposite decision for our sons believing that was in their best interests. The decision you made on behalf of your son is none of my business nor is the decision we made on behalf of our sons any of your business. Certainly, the government has no right to insert itself into the decision.
Frankly, I think that both sides on this debate greatly exaggerate their medical positions. Both sides greatly overstate the consequences of the decision on a minor medical procedure. I'm amazed how emotional some people get over this issue.
I don't think that male circumcision is a big deal, one way or the other. I do think that the issue of mandatory compliance (either way) is a big deal and all freedom-loving people should oppose.
This issue should make for some interesting signs at townhall meetings.
“Gosh, you don’t think that cultures with different religious beliefs might not have different sexual practices and morals?”
Great point. Thanks fer makin’ me feel stoopid!
(I should have made that point)
GG
“I rely on reason, thank you very much.
I don’t have imaginary friends or overlords- especially the melodramatic kinds shaped by human imagination.”
You have some very solid points and some great insight... it’s a pity to ruin that with the outright slander of something others hold sacred. It’s well within your rights to believe as you wish. An answer that stopped at the first sentence would have been more genteel and answered the question quite well... your full answer went beyond reason and into the realm of the unreasonable. Your wish, I believe was to slap down the person with whom your argument began, but instead you struck all who hold a belief in God.
For a person who claims to rely on “reason” that’s seems to be uncharmingly uncharacteristic.
“Let’s let men decide for themselves, OK?
Instead of letting the government decide how much of your penis you get to keep?”
I agree with this addition... the parents have a right to decide as well.
It is a subsciption service so I only saw the one page on AIDs which is NOT CANCER as we were discussing. One item did catch my attention was that Islamists had less AIDS than Christians. At least according to your source.
Another subscription service but your link did say that the study supports the hypothesis that lack of circumcism is an AIDs risk. Again, nothing on Cancer and no real correlation.
Nothing that I looked up was subscription.
We were talking about cancer???
Dang....I am so confused now.
Not the first time................................
Among Muslims in Kigali, Rwanda [42], circumcision was associated with a protective effect (crude RR ˆ 0.18, CI 0.02±1.20). Little association was seen among Christians (crude RR ˆ 0.79, CI 0.50±1.23),
And they go on to say that this non-effect may be because Christians are circumcised post-puberty.
although this could be because, unlike Muslims, most Christians were circumcised post-puberty.
However, they continue on to show a pupulation where post-puberty circumcism has a higher effect!
In contrast, among men in rural Mwanza [22], circumcision before 15 years was associated with an increased risk of HIV (adjusted RR ˆ 1.50, CI 0.57±3.90), whereas circumcision at age 15 years or older was associated with a lower HIV risk (adjusted RR ˆ 0.37, CI 0.18±0.74). The reasons for these discrepant ®ndings are unclear, and further work on the effect of age at circumcision on HIV susceptibility is needed.
They do admit that self-reporting is not reliable.
Circumcision was determined by self-report in 16 studies, and by clinical examination in eight studies. For four further studies [35±38] the method of ascertainment was not clear. Validity of self-reported circumcision was assessed among factory workers in Mwanza [21]. Of the 111 men who had reported they were circumcised, only 69% were found to be so on examination. Among the 91 men who reported themselves as uncircumcised, 94% were found to be uncircumcised on examination. This suggests that selfreported circumcision may overestimate the proportion of men circumcised in this population,
Even though they don't mention such preventive measures as washing and keeping it zipped, they do admit that putting a circumcism program into place may not be the answer and may make the situation worse.
including the possibility that men may increase their risky sexual behaviour if they think circumcision confers a high degree of protection,
What about female circumcision?
The second led me to a message that the fee in $36 dollars a day for access. You are right. We were not talking about Cancer. I just got home and hadn't gone back to see which conversation you were responding to.
I must be on a roll.......
I agree with this addition... the parents have a right to decide as well.
Do babies (and fetuses) have the right to their own life and intact bodies?
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.