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 ...
“When one man has four wives, three men have no wife.”
I’d love to agree with you but this statement brings the others to question. It only holds true if the ratio between men and women is 1 to 1. Of course three of those women may be ugly making everything else more likely.
Hmmm...
Being a Christian. I would not advocate the ritual kind. We are under God’s grace not the law of Moses.
But circumcision does have some health benefits.
You don’t have to take the example of Islamic countries.
Sweden and Israel, and for that matter, Pakistan, have the same HIV prevalence rates.
The United States has a higher HIV prevalence rate than any of the above, and higher rates of circumcision than Sweden.
The ‘correlation is not causation’ argument will fit well with those who advocate genital mutilation as a “remedy” for STDs, too.
Fear not.........
: )
I don’t disagree.............
One had all their males circumcised...the other did not. All due to religious beliefs...
Yuh think???
(Junk science on parade!)
About that African study, I’d be willing to bet that the circumcised village was the Islamic one and the uncircumcised one, Christian or native religion.
Do you know what happens to those who indulge in homosexual relationships and extramarital/ premarital affairs in an Islamic society? That itself might be the key reason for lower HIV rates.
I was laughing at his being absurd. My father had one before he died of cancer. I pray you were not offended.
Regards,
What does your “god” say?
“2. The “real estate” and nerve ending in that parcel have a meaningful effect on marital relations, which are part of G*d’s natural order.”
Sorry, but I must call Bravo Sierra on the above. From many, many sources, the common view is that circumcision causes a increases the amount of penile vaginal contact to result in male ejaculation.
For the female, longer time is better, generally.
Just as an experiment, ask the females in your life, and check the literature.
I rely on reason, thank you very much.
I don’t have imaginary friends or overlords- especially the melodramatic kinds shaped by human imagination.
The frenulum is damaged when the foreskin is removed.
The frenulum is one of the most nerve-ending-laden regions of the male penis, if not the most.
Someone ought to conduct a study to investigate any correlation between the diminished satisfaction of males due to penile mutilation, and extramarital affairs, LOL!
Let’s let men decide for themselves, OK?
Instead of letting the government decide how much of your penis you get to keep?
After all the first income tax was only 2%.
Can you suppose that maybe these villages had many traditional religious beliefs...but were generally secular in their morals.
No different IMO...than many varied religions thru out the world.
Yuh think? /s
Source?
None whatsoever.
About the only thing that offends me anymore is liberalism.
LOL!!
Thanks...friend.
But you do believe in Barney, right?
Barney... who? Frank?
:^)
I have as well. When my son is an adult, if he feels he is highly likely to develop penile cancer, he will have my wholehearted support in undergoing a circumcision.
Before he was born, I saw no evidence compelling enough to take the risk with a newborn baby.
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.