Officials Weigh Circumcision to Fight H.I.V. Risk

Officials Weigh Circumcision to Fight H.I.V. Risk

www.nytimes.com

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.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Wow.... Imagine where this is going. Nationalized Health Care could require this procedure to cut costs down the road. I couldn't imagine the religious impacts a decision like this could have for some.

Wouldn't education and condoms be cheaper then these procedures? Maybe less invasive into the lives of the US citizens.

Would it even be effective? Here is a quote from the article:

Circumcision rates have fallen in part because the American Academy of Pediatrics, which sets the guidelines for infant care, does not endorse routine circumcision. Its policy says that circumcision is “not essential to the child’s current well-being,” and as a result, many state Medicaid programs do not cover the operation.

Very interesting.

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 24-8-2009 by Roadblockx]

[edit on 8/25/2009 by semperfortis]

??????????

It's up to the parent to circumsize or not
For the jewish community it's a rabbi that does it not the hospital
I am not and will never do it nor do it to my upcoming son

Secondly, H.I.V has nothing to do with aids!

reply to post by ModernAcademia




I am all for your rights to decide whether this procedure should be performed. Not those that are looking at the "bigger picture"..

I am very happy my parents decided to have me circ'd, and I certainly will do so to my child (I prefer it for comfort/cleanliness purposes, not religious or idealistic), should I ever have a boy.

However, I understand how someone could argue against me, which is why I am 100% for the parents' right to decide.

What do you mean, "HIV has nothing to do with AIDS?"

reply to post by ninecrimes



Ninecrimes, nice to see you again ol' friend.


I agree with you. Both my sons had it done as did I (when I was a baby). I still support those that choose otherwise.

Originally posted by mattifikation
What do you mean, "HIV has nothing to do with AIDS?"

Top virologists will tell you that HIV is not related to aids.
In fact they also say they will never find a cure for aids because they aren't finding a cure for the cause of aids.

www.duesberg.com...

www.csulb.edu...

www.orgonelab.org...

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
H.I.V has nothing to do with aids!

LOL!

I remember a doctor from years ago that was saying the same thing. He said to prove it, he would inject himself with a pure strain of H.I.V. However, he never got around to doing it!

I wonder why?

IRM

Unless there are medical reasons, circumcision = mutilation. That's my position. No difference between boys of girls, it is just mutilation. I also think the religion should not be an excuse.

If it's OK to mutilate boys then it is OK to mutilate girls. It is not OK to mutilate girls, so it should not be OK to mutilate boys.

To protect boys and girls / men and women against HIV AIDS and other STD, the medical profession, healthcare and parents should indoctrinate a message of safe sex - condoms.

Regards

Originally posted by paraphi
Unless there are medical reasons, circumcision = mutilation. That's my position. No difference between boys of girls, it is just mutilation. I also think the religion should not be an excuse.

If it's OK to mutilate boys then it is OK to mutilate girls. It is not OK to mutilate girls, so it should not be OK to mutilate boys.

To protect boys and girls / men and women against HIV AIDS and other STD, the medical profession, healthcare and parents should indoctrinate a message of safe sex - condoms.

Regards

You see it as mutilation, but you are not everyone. I am thankful for my parents' ability to make the decision they did, and I'd be pretty upset if they hadn't and I had to choose to have it done as an adult.

Shame on you for trying to impose your own opinion on everyone in the world by labeling your opposition as mutilators.

Originally posted by paraphi

To protect boys and girls / men and women against HIV AIDS and other STD, the medical profession, healthcare and parents should indoctrinate a message of safe sex - condoms.

That's what people have been trying to do for awhile now. How's that working out for you, by the way?

Originally posted by paraphi
Unless there are medical reasons, circumcision = mutilation. That's my position. No difference between boys of girls, it is just mutilation. I also think the religion should not be an excuse.

If it's OK to mutilate boys then it is OK to mutilate girls. It is not OK to mutilate girls, so it should not be OK to mutilate boys.

To protect boys and girls / men and women against HIV AIDS and other STD, the medical profession, healthcare and parents should indoctrinate a message of safe sex - condoms.

Regards

I dont see it as mutilation at all, i am circumcised and it was because of an infection or something along those lines i cant really remember it was when i was around 6, i am glad for it, it is so much cleaner and nicer looking imo.

However i agree with to protect against HIV/AIDS it should be condoms not circumcision, however the true fact remains until wearing a condom feels exactly the same as not wearing a condom people will continue not to use them because they prefer the feeling without, stupid yes but its what happens.

And on the point of girls, well theres nothing you can really do there is there? I mean what are you going to do? Cut off there clitoris? So that doesnt arguement doesnt really work.

Cx

This is retarded. Really, it is. sick. I did my research on HIV, alot, and learned that it can only live a few seconds outsiide of the body. So basically HIV is ocnsidered 'dead' 5 seconds or less. When someone gets HIV, the transmission MUST be immediate for it to survive, thus needs an immediate host! without a host, its simply dies.

It's all bogus info about HIV and circumcision.

I do not know the angle on why the AMA, CDC, Big Pharma, or Docs for that matter would want to urge this procedure being done.

Sure, you need to clean it differently. If you kept a sock on your foot for 6 weeks your feet probably wouldn't be doing too well either.

It is mutilation. At least thats what its called for girls.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Secondly, H.I.V has nothing to do with aids!

I think I'll put this one up there with the 18% of people who still believe the sun revolves around the earth.

Always good for a laugh these posts.

I think circumcision should be a personal choice. It seems that there are pros and cons to circumcision, which is why the medical community seems to vascilate on the issue.


At the end of the day, this story seems to be much ado about nothing. HIV, in the industrial world, is not that big a deal. Heart Attacks, Diabetis, and cancer pose far greater a danger for a child born in the industrialized world today than HIV. Avoiding IV drug use and condoms are far more effective than circumcisions in preventing the spread of AIDS.

Originally posted by brocket99


It is mutilation. At least thats what its called for girls.

Excuse me, but what are you talking about?

Female circumcision (as I understand it) is the cultural practice of removing the clitoris, or at times the entire external part of the vagina during a girl's youth as a rite of passage. Male circumcision is simply removing the foreskin. It doesn't affect the ability of the penis to function in the slightest, whereas female circumcision would. IMO you can't really compare the two, one is a legitimate medical practice and the other is... as you put it, a mutilation.

There are myriad benefits to circumcision (besides the appearance ). However, it should still be a decision left to the parent, as I doubt forcing people to get circumcised will have too noticeable effect on the spread of HIV. However, there are many health benefits to circumcision, so it is something all parents should be allowed to consider.

Also, pretty much every girl I've ever heard weigh in on the subject during my lifetime has expressed a preference for circumcised men. It may be different in other countries where the practice is not as common, but here in the US it is something to consider for your child's future relationships (although you might not like to think about that right now).

You can be circumcised at ANY age, but you can not have the operation undone. Unless there is a direct medical need there is no harm in waiting until the person reaches an acceptible age to make the decision themselves.


It should NOT be a parents decision. And it most certainly should not be the governments deciscion.

reply to post by drwizardphd


...and that's like your opinion man.

Please list the health benefits. Like I said, if you let it get dirty in there for an extended period of time you could get an infection. Other then that the health benefits are bogus.

Your scientific survey of the 20 women you've known in your life have very little bearing on the acceptability of a circumsized man to non-circ.

History has shown that people do dumb stuff all the time in the name of religion, acceptance by others, and the norm. It doesn't make it right.

It's doubtful an uncircumsized man/boy would not call it mutilation if made to do it at a later age. Ask a bunch of 25 year old uncircumsized men if they would consider cutting a piece of their junk mutilation.

Something tells me that their opinion is far more important then your survey.

The foreskin has a ton of nerve endings in it as well, so how do you know what you're missing?

[edit on 24-8-2009 by brocket99]