Oh No! It's Another Thread About Circumcision.

[josher]

Re: Circumcision Vigilantes in Uganda

^^Parents have the inherent right to make medical decisions about their children's health and wellbeing.

Only a court can overrule their decisions, if it feels the child's wellbeing is endangered.

No court is ever going to second-quess a parent with regard to their son's circumcision unless it can be proven that being circumcised would somehow endanger the child. There is no evidence that circumcision endangers any man's health or well-being. All the medical evidence (cancer rates/HIV infection rates, etc.) is quite to the contrary.

In addition, denying parents the right to have their sons circumcised would violate their First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

 

[evil_danger]

Re: Circumcision Vigilantes in Uganda

First of all, it is not true that there are potential benefits. Scandinavian men, who are mostly intact, have lower rates of penile cancer and meatus ulceration than American men, who are mostly circumcised.

And the reason why it is a double-standard is because girls are protected from having part of their genitals cut off, but boys are not. Even if there were medical benefits, none of them would justify violating a little boy's right to keep part of his body. If there were medical benefits to circumcision, the boy should decide whether the potential benefits are worth it when he becomes a man. This is not a life and death issue. If a little boy had cancer of the prepuce or an untreatable infection in it that might result in death if the prepuce is not amputated, then yes, it would be justified to circumcise him. But circumcising a little boy because there is a one in three thousand chance that he might get cancer in the foreskin 40 years latter is not justifiable.

I agree with what your saying, circumcision to prevent something that might never happen is like having your tonsils out because theres a small chance they could get infected, believe me I know your argument and its one I totally agree with. But I don't see how anyone can compare male circumcision, the removal of some skin to a female circumcision, the removal of most of the female sexual organ.

 

[Dduder]

Re: Circumcision Vigilantes in Uganda

But I don't see how anyone can compare male circumcision, the removal of some skin to a female circumcision, the removal of most of the female sexual organ.

I'm not. American law forbids any genital alteration to be done on infant girls, including excision of the clitoral prepuce, which is analogous to male circumcision. That is a double-standard.

 

[Dduder]

Re: Circumcision Vigilantes in Uganda

^^Parents have the inherent right to make medical decisions about their children's health and wellbeing.

Only a court can overrule their decisions, if it feels the child's wellbeing is endangered.

No court is ever going to second-quess a parent with regard to their son's circumcision unless it can be proven that being circumcised would somehow endanger the child. There is no evidence that circumcision endangers any man's health or well-being. All the medical evidence (cancer rates/HIV infection rates, etc.) is quite to the contrary.

In addition, denying parents the right to have their sons circumcised would violate their First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

Parents do not have the right to circumcise their sons, and here's why. There is something called the principle of equality before the law, one of the most sacred principles of Western Civilization that comes from the time of the Magna Carta, and girls are protected under U.S law from having any surgical alteration done to their genitals by their parents. This means that law is unconstitutional, because it grants a right based on gender. Either boys are granted the same protection under the law that girls have, or the law should be abolished altogether. Not having circumcision outlawed for minors is already an insult, but granting protection from it to children of one gender but not to children of the other adds insult to injury.

 

[Dduder]

Re: Circumcision Vigilantes in Uganda

I can see that the pro-mutilation crowd has gone silent over my latest arguments. Good. That means they respond to reason, finally.

 

[josher]

Re: Circumcision Vigilantes in Uganda

Not at all. It's just that you're one of those anti-circumcision fanatics, so there's not much point in debating with you.

And seriously sweetie, you need to learn a lot more about constitutional law, if you're going to try to make constitutional arguments.

 

[spooger]

Re: Circumcision Vigilantes in Uganda

That's one way to look at it.
Or, you could say it's another example of religious fanatics run amok, forcing other people to live according to their beliefs.

or maybe it's the militancy of those who've been whacked already..."if I had to do it....so do you"

i'm going to carry my scissors with me and pull down the shorts of every guy i suspect of still having a foreskin, and....SNIP

having said that....tongue-in-cheek.....i will say how terribly sad it is that humankind still ...in the 21st century....practices so many barbaric behaviors....the developed world as well as the "third world"

 

[metta]

Male Circumcision to Reduce Spread of HIV

Researchers Call for Male Circumcision to Reduce Spread of HIV

http://www.realjock.com/article/1195

Male circumcision should be actively encouraged to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa, a non-profit group urged the XVIIth annual International AIDS Conference this past week.

Yet for some time, it has also been clear that circumcision substantially lowers the risk of HIV infection. The World Health Organization asserts that, "There is now strong evidence from three randomized controlled trials undertaken in Kisumu, Kenya, Rakai District, Uganda and Orange Farm, South Africa that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%."

"Studies to date have demonstrated efficacy only for penile-vaginal sex, the predominant mode of HIV transmission in Africa, whereas the predominant mode of sexual HIV transmission in the United States is by penile-anal sex among MSM [men who have sex with men]." The American Foundation for AIDS Research complained about a gay-straight HIV information gap at the conference this week, pointing out that 44 percent of countries worldwide have failed to provide any statistical data on AIDS and gay men, despite the fact that gay men are 19 times more likely to contract HIV than their heterosexual counterparts. For gay men, the current research indicates that the efficacy of circumcision will depend in part on the sex practices each man engages in. According to the CDC, "Receptive anal sex is associated with a substantially greater risk of HIV acquisition than is insertive anal sex. It is more biologically plausible that male circumcision would reduce HIV acquisition risk for the insertive partner rather than for the receptive partner, but few MSM engage solely in insertive anal sex." Given the lower infection rates in the U.S., and the demographic concentration of infections in the gay community, calls for widespread circumcisions are likely to continue to focus on Africa for the time being.

Male circumcision reduces HIV risk by 60%, says study

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/oct/25/medicalresearch.aids

 

[G-Lexington]

Re: Male Circumcision to Reduce Spread of HIV

If you can't get men to slip a condom on, how can you expect them to slice off part of their penis? Fuck that shit.

Lex

 

[metta]

Re: Male Circumcision to Reduce Spread of HIV

>..... how so?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/oct/25/medicalresearch.aids

Why circumcision should offer some protection is not well understood, but researchers know that the part of the foreskin that is removed in the operation is rich in Langerhans cells that the virus strongly attaches to. "HIV has to gain access to the body and to do that it binds to particular cell types," Dr Puren said. "By removing the skin that contains those cells, you remove the tissue the virus would normally bind to." Similar trials are ongoing in Kenya and Uganda and are expected to end within the next year.

 

[Giovanni]

Re: Male Circumcision to Reduce Spread of HIV

How about this, use condoms and stop fucking around.

 

[gdude30]

Re: Male Circumcision to Reduce Spread of HIV

Fuck no one is ever cutting my dick.

Don't care how many crackwhore scientists say that circumcision will slow down HIV.

A FUCKING CONDOM WILL DO THAT :/

Don't need to go around chopping penises to prevent it. I think God is telling scientists that they need to chop their penises off or something to be holy.

Tsk Tsk Tsk

 

[jamessmith08]

Re: Male Circumcision to Reduce Spread of HIV

Research has been found that uncut men are more likely to harbour disease than cut cocks.

Because of the nature of the foreskin it is not very sanitary (though i dont have a problem with it I think some are beautiful).

Although the real way to reduce HIV is to stop the Vatican from saying that condoms are evil or getting more people gay or straight to insist on condoms everytime.

Even if you test negative that doesn't mean the disease isn't dormant in your system or your partners. that why you should be checked at a min once every 6 months or if you're having more sex once every 3 months.

Some people go to a free clinic but your general practioner can also do a simple blood test and send the sample away to be tested.

My doctor sends the results to me on a card and it says "results negative" so i have physical proof that i've been tested and that i'm negative, but I still use condoms.

Its smarter and cleaner.

 

[jamessmith08]

Re: Male Circumcision to Reduce Spread of HIV

No way. Condoms are messy yucky things that leave spermicidal gunk all over the place. They're smelly as well. And then disposing of them...think of the environmental impact they have both in their production and disposal. Phew, the number of drains I've blocked with a big ol' cum filled condom...I've lost count.

but if a guy didnt clean his ass then you'd have to clean your cock. Think of all the soap/water you'd use to get that off. If you use a condom it goes on the condom and not your cock and you can just toss it in the rubbish bin

 

[ComNavFdgPk]

Re: Male Circumcision to Reduce Spread of HIV

If you can't get men to slip a condom on, how can you expect them to slice off part of their penis? Fuck that shit.

Lex

 

[sabot3ur]

Re: Male Circumcision to Reduce Spread of HIV

I heard somewhere if you cut the whole thing off, there's a 100% reduced chance of contracting during gay sex.

cooooooooool.

 

[AdmiraalW238]

Re: Male Circumcision to Reduce Spread of HIV

As Shep (I think) posted earlier; that is total BS. Look at the AIDS epidemic amongst (often cut) gay men in the USA. Then compare the percentage to gay AIDS victims in Europe (usually uncut).

The research on male circumcision specifically relates to heterosexual male. There has been no research, as far as I am aware, that looks at the rate of HIV amongst gay men who are circumcised.

 

[hummer7979]

Re: Male Circumcision to Reduce Spread of HIV

Some people don't seem to realize that for people in cultures where circumcision is foreign, it appears ridiculously gruesome.

Even if this study were true, what makes anyone think that it would be an adopted practice, aside from the gov't forcing all (newborn) males to have it done?

 

[hummer7979]

Re: Male Circumcision to Reduce Spread of HIV

Besides all this, circumcision in Africa as a way of controlling the AIDS pandemic is suggested only through informed consent; as far as I'm able to discern, Routine Infant Circumcision has not been suggested, and is quite a different matter anyway.

I think the main objection is toward circumcision at birth, i.e. without consent.

On a purely medical and logistical note, I don't think circumcision is a good way to control the spread of HIV because it is not foolproof. Men who are circumcised are still going to need to wear a condom, right?

So when considering HIV prevention, an adult male can either:

A) wear a condom during sex, or
B) go through a surgical procedure (with its possible costs and inherent, albeit perhaps low, chance of complication) and STILL wear a condom during sex.

This is without any consideration as to how circumcised penises are perceived in places where it's rare. I mean, to those unfamiliar, it may just look like mutilation.

I just really don't think anyone would voluntarily go through such a process.

 

[AdmiraalW238]

Re: Male Circumcision to Reduce Spread of HIV

^ I already pointed this out in post #25 but I wasn't explicit enough by highlighting that the studies concentrated on penile/vaginal intercourse but either I'm on several ignore lists or else some people just love being scared all the time
.
.

You are certainly not on my ignore list and never will be. I was remiss in not reading all of the posts (which I have this habit of doing) so did not notice that you had already made a the same observation as me.