Circumcision campaign in Africa reduces HIV infections 76%, study finds, page 4

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times

reply posted on 1-9-2011 @ 04:16 PM by BIGPoJo

Certain STDs such as HPV and Herpes attack the foreskin more than the rest of the penis. A circumcised penis has a better chance at recovery and staying healthy because it has less foreskin. The case for AIDs reduction is simple as well. The foreskin in an uncircumcised penis has more surface area for the virus to penetrate. There is also the problem with the folding of the skin to hold in junk. Its common sense people.

I do however blame circumcision for the overpopulation of Earth, well we could blame medicine in general for that.

reply posted on 1-9-2011 @ 04:19 PM by BIGPoJo

Originally posted by toolstarr
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

You know damn well that breastfeeding is nature's way to feed a baby. Cutting the skin from around their penises is not natural. Apples to oranges dude. Your argument is null and void.

Cutting the umbilical cord is not natural either, we are supposed to chew it off like animals. We are not animals however and we have recognized that our bodies have things that we do not need to survive and in some cases can make life harder, like foreskin.

reply posted on 1-9-2011 @ 05:10 PM by adraves

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
Certain STDs such as HPV and Herpes attack the foreskin more than the rest of the penis. A circumcised penis has a better chance at recovery and staying healthy because it has less foreskin. The case for AIDs reduction is simple as well. The foreskin in an uncircumcised penis has more surface area for the virus to penetrate. There is also the problem with the folding of the skin to hold in junk. Its common sense people.

I do however blame circumcision for the overpopulation of Earth, well we could blame medicine in general for that.

And that foreskin is analogous to a women's labia. What if cutting the labia off would prevent disease? Is it the right decision to cut it off without the child's knowledge or consent? Why can't the child be informed and make his own decision?

i know it is tradition, and there are benefits, but is it an acceptable thing to do?

reply posted on 1-9-2011 @ 05:14 PM by adraves

Originally posted by BIGPoJo

Originally posted by toolstarr
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

You know damn well that breastfeeding is nature's way to feed a baby. Cutting the skin from around their penises is not natural. Apples to oranges dude. Your argument is null and void.

Cutting the umbilical cord is not natural either, we are supposed to chew it off like animals. We are not animals however and we have recognized that our bodies have things that we do not need to survive and in some cases can make life harder, like foreskin.

the umbilical cord is something that would dry up and fall off regardless. Animals chew it off and lick their offspring clean. The umbilical cord is not a good example here. The umbilical cord does not have any function for an adult, or nerve endings. We are talking about sex and sex organs here. Sex is very important to our lives, and we simply cut the foreskin off because the bible says we should? Why should we disfigure our children to prevent disease? If that kind of thought was extended to other body parts it wouldn't be allowed....especially lady parts.

edit on 1-9-2011 by adraves because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-9-2011 @ 09:31 PM by SuperiorEd

reply to post by chasingbrahman

Another reason to categorically reject Jesus: he wants infant boys to have their penises sliced open. SuperiorEd, you should call the big guy yourself and ask him if he needs a PR campaign. I think you'd do really, really great.

Galatians 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

When the law was the guardian of man, circumcision was vital for the health of all involved. These people did not bathe every day. They were nomadic herdsman living in a wilderness. There was not soap. The law was a guardian and symbolic of what they represented. Circumcision was the symbol for cutting away pride. For the people, circumcision protected the women from infection and the men from the disorders associated with the filthy desert conditions. This is an amazing reason to categorically embrace Jesus and Give Him the glory and honor.

Galatians 3

23 Before the coming of this faith,[j] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

reply posted on 1-9-2011 @ 09:33 PM by SuperiorEd

Originally posted by adraves

Originally posted by BIGPoJo

And that foreskin is analogous to a women's labia. What if cutting the labia off would prevent disease? Is it the right decision to cut it off without the child's knowledge or consent? Why can't the child be informed and make his own decision?

i know it is tradition, and there are benefits, but is it an acceptable thing to do?

Cutting the female for any reason is not biblical.

reply posted on 1-9-2011 @ 09:58 PM by adraves

reply to post by SuperiorEd

Based on that, then we shouldn't allow Cesarian sections because cutting women in any way isn't biblical. This is a different day and age than when the bible was written. Please stop posting replies about biblical/religious ideals.

reply posted on 1-9-2011 @ 10:11 PM by SuperiorEd

Originally posted by adraves
reply to post by SuperiorEd

Based on that, then we shouldn't allow Cesarian sections because cutting women in any way isn't biblical. This is a different day and age than when the bible was written. Please stop posting replies about biblical/religious ideals.

You are looking to discredit the Bible and I get that. I am saying that cutting the female is not a biblical reference. You were previously referring to the Muslim faith. The Bible does not say to cut the female. I doubt the Bible references Cesarian in any way. It does condone doing what is good for a person's health.

Matthew 2:17

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

reply posted on 1-9-2011 @ 10:14 PM by TallWhiteHuman

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
LINK

Percentage decrease in HIV infections among a group of 20,000 men over age 15 from Orange Farm Township in South Africa who were offered free circumcision procedures as part of an AIDS prevention campaign that brought the proportion of circumcised men in the community from 16% to 50%. Previous clinical trials have demonstrated the protective effect of circumcision against contracting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections...

Genesis 17

We often wonder why God specifies the things He does in the OT. In this case, the answer is clear. It was to increase their numbers and to provide a healthier environment for childbearing. Most likely, it was also for the health of the woman as well. Yeast infections account for an entire host of problems which are solved with circumcision.

2 Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.”

9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

what about the "dont eat tha poopoo" guy ? doesnt he get any credit for this one

nah , seriously though, in a way i suppose thats a good thing.

reply posted on 1-9-2011 @ 10:18 PM by adraves

reply to post by SuperiorEd

I am not trying to discredit or bash on the torah/new testament. I am trying to discredit the notion that we should follow everything written it those texts. Not everything written in those texts needs to be applied to modern life. I feel circumcision is one example of that.

reply posted on 1-9-2011 @ 11:55 PM by King33

reply to post by OzWeatherman

Only if you wash it.

reply posted on 3-9-2011 @ 05:09 AM by stumason

Originally posted by King33
reply to post by OzWeatherman

Only if you wash it.

Obviously... Duh

One could argue that teeth are bad for health, because people who have bad teeth or gum disease are more prone to heart problems and strokes, medical fact.

Should we not then advocate the removal of all teeth?

No, obviously not, because if you keep your teeth clean, you have less of a chance of developing any problems.

reply posted on 3-9-2011 @ 05:26 AM by MastaShake

A study that i conducted states that 95% of people that believe god is the creator of the universe have aids or will have aids somewhere in the near future

reply posted on 27-12-2012 @ 05:25 PM by King33

reply to post by stumason

Well some people really dont,OK.

reply posted on 27-12-2012 @ 05:47 PM by FirstCasualty

This argument has always got under my skin. no pun intended.

At this stage of our evolution (sure. intelligent design, i really don't care) why would there be people out there that think that a child would need to physically mutilated in order to have a fulfilling life here on earth?

I was snipped. Never had a choice and if i could take it back i would. There is nothing cool about the tip of your penis rubbing against denim or cotton or what ever. It was meant to be protected withing the for-skin. Whether intelligent design or the will of god... that is how it was meant to be.

Maybe since more and more mothers are finding formula easier to deal with than breast feeding we can start cutting women's breasts off at birth (or 8 days later) cause after all, look at the increase in breast cancer we are dealing with today. lets nip it in the bud. Again no pun intended.

I do apologize if I'm sounding crude or short sighted but i don't see how we can still accept something so barbaric. It seems like it started out as a religious ceremony that wont die and now religious lobbyist are scrambling to find medical evidence to back up their preconceived notions.

I heard somewhere a saying that fits well. For-skin is not a birth defect, its a birthright.

Its the 21st century. Wash your sons penis! then teach him to do it like you taught him to brush his teeth. Its very simple.

edit on 27-12-2012 by FirstCasualty because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 08:09 AM by stumason

Originally posted by King33
reply to post by stumason

Well some people really dont,OK.

Well, that's an individual problem and certainly no reason to go around advocating mass-scale genital mutilation.

edit on 28/12/12 by stumason because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 10:22 AM by PaddyInf

Can't really comment on the mass gential mutilation/completely necessary removal of useless skin (delete as necessary) debate.

I was circumcised when I was in my early twenties. I had been doing what dirty little sods in their early twenties do, and was hanging out of every little scutter who would let me*.

Being from the UK I wasn't circumcised. I contracted a bit of c0ck rot, causing some rather nasty lesions in my foreskin. This created scar tissue and later some phimosis (tight foreskin). I got the infection cleared up (simple bacterial thing it turned out), and went to the doc about my now less than efficient winky. After some discussion we decided on a circumcision.

I must be honest, It wasn't the most pleasant thing to have done. My dingaling looked like it had been in a fight - bruised and swollen for a few days. After that I was hyper-sensitive around the glans for a couple of weeks. Sounds like great fun, but was at the stage where I needed to wear loose cloathes to reduce contact. However within about 2 weeks I was on top form. No problems at all. These days I have no issues. Indeed it is much easier to keep clean.

For my part I can only say that having the foreskin removed or keeping it intact makes absolutely no difference at all apart from an aesthetic point of view. No significant change in sexual feeling at all. No abdolut pros or cons of note.

To be frank I don't know what all the fuss is about.

*I no longer do such disgusting things (at least with out a little hood on!) and would not condone such actions amongst others, particularly in the Greater Belfast area.

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 02:52 PM by FirstCasualty

Originally posted by PaddyInf
Can't really comment on the mass gential mutilation/completely necessary removal of useless skin (delete as necessary) debate.

I was circumcised when I was in my early twenties. I had been doing what dirty little sods in their early twenties do, and was hanging out of every little scutter who would let me*.

Being from the UK I wasn't circumcised. I contracted a bit of c0ck rot, causing some rather nasty lesions in my foreskin. This created scar tissue and later some phimosis (tight foreskin). I got the infection cleared up (simple bacterial thing it turned out), and went to the doc about my now less than efficient winky. After some discussion we decided on a circumcision.

I must be honest, It wasn't the most pleasant thing to have done. My dingaling looked like it had been in a fight - bruised and swollen for a few days. After that I was hyper-sensitive around the glans for a couple of weeks. Sounds like great fun, but was at the stage where I needed to wear loose cloathes to reduce contact. However within about 2 weeks I was on top form. No problems at all. These days I have no issues. Indeed it is much easier to keep clean.

For my part I can only say that having the foreskin removed or keeping it intact makes absolutely no difference at all apart from an aesthetic point of view. No significant change in sexual feeling at all. No abdolut pros or cons of note.

To be frank I don't know what all the fuss is about.

*I no longer do such disgusting things (at least with out a little hood on!) and would not condone such actions amongst others, particularly in the Greater Belfast area.

Ok. So you neglected you willy and it got infected. Does that mean all little boys should be snipped because you were reckless? i know a kid that got an ear infection, quick go cut yours off before you get it too.

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 03:17 PM by PaddyInf

reply to post by FirstCasualty

No. What it means is that I believe that too many people blow the whole issue out of proportion. Surgery was sen as the least problematic of the treatment options available. Circumcision is not a big deal.

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 04:09 PM by FirstCasualty

Originally posted by PaddyInf
reply to post by FirstCasualty

No. What it means is that I believe that too many people blow the whole issue out of proportion. Surgery was sen as the least problematic of the treatment options available. Circumcision is not a big deal.

Easy for you to say. It wasnt just your choice but it was medically necessary due to the condition you chose to be in because you chose not to take care of it.

If its not a problem then let ADULTS decide for themselves.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^