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

Yep, they told me it was mutilation. I had mutilated my son.

ARGHHHH!!!

I can not begin to express my disgust, dismay, and downright anger over that one...

Strange that the only "civilized" countries that are pro-circers are the US and Israel.

Remember this article is given by the same doctor that said ritual circumcision was not effective and only clinical circumcision would work and was involved in the first studies that were stopped before results were in. Well, at $108 - $250 dollars a chop that's a pretty good cash-cow. By the numbers, the guy said 5 men circed for 1 saved per year. It would take 25 men circed for the same results for year two. Year 3 would be 650 men circumcised for every one saved. Good for the people getting the grants not for the population. Even if all African adult males were circumcised today (and its real-world effectiveness to stop HIV proves to be as high as purported in recent controlled studies),over the next 10-year period it would reduce the number of HIV cases in sub-SaharanAfrica by only eight percent, with a one percent reduction of deaths (Williams, 2006).

Free condoms at 0.03 cents apiece and not getting drunk and screwing prostitutes would be 95% more effective .(www.icgi.org)

Orange Farm(Farma) is a township located approximately 45 km from Johannesburg, Gauteng Province, South Africa. It is the largest informal settlement in South Africa, with most estimates giving a population of 1 million people (not 100,000 like the article suggests.)

Williams, B. G., Lloyd-Smith, J. O., Gouws, E., Hankins, C., & Getz, W. M. (2006). The potential impact of male circumcision on HIV in sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS Medicine, 3(7), e262.doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030262

I think it is mutilation to permanently remove a part of a person's body without their consent. If a man wants to do it when he has all of the information (as in this case, before he is sexually active) - that is his right.

I don't think a parent has the right to make that decision for him.

It is irreversible and not necessary. In my opinion, that is really all that needs to be said for the argument.

I do not believe that we should create any laws banning them in the USA or anything like that. But I feel strongly enough about it that I do voice my opinion when the topic comes up.

Do you also feel that parents should not inoculate infants against disease?

Circumcision is not capable of eradicating any diseases as immunizations have been able to do (this article even states that fact).

For this argument to work, you would need to equate it with cutting out the breast tissue of female babies to prevent breast cancer. Effective? Yes. A good idea? No. Though there are probably some who may argue it could be a good idea; I don't know.

What about infant surgery?

Infant surgery...I think it depends on the surgery. Circumcision is surgery so I would say 'no' in that case.

If the surgery is to save the child's life, I think the answer is obvious.

Circumcision helps prevent disease and doesn't stop a man from having sex. Removing breast tissue would prevent a woman from feeding her babies and is not at all a good analogy. And actually, some women with a specific gene DO get their breast tissue removed to prevent them from getting cancer.

And actually, some women with a specific gene DO get their breast tissue removed to prevent them from getting cancer.

Right...when they're ADULTS!

Removing breast tissue would prevent a woman from feeding her babies and is not at all a good analogy.

Umm...it's called formula and a bottle and more than 1/2 of mothers never breastfeed for various reasons.

It is irreversible and not necessary. In my opinion, that is really all that needs to be said for the argument.

I hope this means you're equally against sixth digit and webbing removal surgeries in infants.

And studies have shown breastfeeding to be much better for infants, so it's still harmful to automatically remove every woman's breasts. Again, circumcision has health benefits without negatively impacting the function of the penis, whereas breast removal does negatively impact the function of the breast.

Again, circumcision has health benefits without negatively impacting the function of the penis, whereas breast removal does negatively impact the function of the breast.

Disagree. With the removal of foreskin you remove millions of nerve-ending. Additionally, the head of the penis is no longer protected and becomes dry or calloused requiring artificial lubricant during intercourse in many circumstances.

Not to mention the risk of botched circumcisions.

http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/horror/horror.shtml

This is a report from Richmond VA. Pediatric urologist Dr. Boyd Winslow reports having done over 1600 corrective surgeries for botched circumcisions in the past 3 years.

For a procedure that is unnecessary with limited health benefits (if any when in developed nations as the USA's primary HIV transmission comes from drug use, not intercourse).

There are no callouses on my penis. It is protected by this thing called underwear, and there is this thing called foreplay that if done right will provide enough natural lubricant to allow for normal intercourse.

Now as far as circumcision goes, the first 4 weeks of life is the BEST time to do the procedure. After that there are significantly more risks envolved. Your own article plainly states that. The Eurologists that was enterviewed is also the only Pediatric Eurologists in Richmond, VA and probably is one of the few in the state. He specialized in these kinds of repairs and probably gets cases from all over the state and neighboring states. So the 1600 number probably will hit under 1% when everything is said and done. Not a very convincing argument.

Now as far as all the broken heart stories about some idiot circumcising a kid who had a broken arm, that is just ludicrous. Of course it happens, there are idiots everywhere. One of the saddest is the case where the woman claims that the boy got infected on his second day of life and had to go back to the hospital where he recieved IV antibiotics. He had seizures that caused brain damage etc. While this is a sad story I suspect that the anti-biotics and not a circumcision caused the seizures. Anyway, it is plain that you are against circumcision regardless of the benefits and are looking for any excuse to make it wrong.

Anyway, it is plain that you are against circumcision regardless of the benefits and are looking for any excuse to make it wrong.

Not at all, any man who wants to get one should. Frankly, my best lover ever was cut (sorry, hubby) as great love-making has nothing to do with whether you are cut or uncut.

I'm only against circumcising babies.

The reason there is an increased risk with older patients is because babies are healing machines and obligated to follow the "no touching" rule until healed.

It's not right to permanently alter a person's body without their consent - that is my ONLY problem with circumcision.

Men are so sensitive about their penises, I find they cannot rationally look at the concept of circumcision without automatically seeking to DEFEND their own penis -- if they are cut, they defend cutting. If they are uncut, the defend not cutting.

Objectively - I only argue that altering a person's body permanently and irreversibly without their consent and without PROFOUND benefit is unethical. And this would apply to any procedure that met this criteria.

But, kudos and appreciation all around for the penises attached to men who use them well - no matter their shape, size, color, or hairiness. ;-) Okay...now I'm just being too graphic...

That's not being too graphic, that's just being appreciative - and I second the thought! And we call it "manscaping" these days if they choose to trim or shave ;)

First off let me apologize weRdoomed.

Katrix I am confused. Should you trim, shave, or go native. To me that is more important that the whole circumcision issue.

As far as this story goes though, we are talking about Africa. Water is not always readily available and standards of cleanliness are not followed as well as they are here. I believe that in Africa circumcision has a much greater benefit to youg males than it does to those in the U.S.A. So my argument would be more geopgraphical. Sorry if I misjudged you weRdoomed. Have a great day

Thanks, Jimmy, you're a rare and admirable type of Viner! No need to apologize, I know this is a very sensitive topic!! Understandably strong feelings all around.

I think all genitals are ugly. Vaginas and penises; cut or uncut. That's why it used to be called "bumping uglies".

I love the way my penis looks, and I have never seen a vagina I did not like, except for those pictures in sex education. Maybe one I would not touch, but not one that was not useful. LOL!

Yeah, but no scientific studies have been done on raping virgins. Some people really need to act like they passed the third grade.

Yeah, but no scientific studies have been done on raping virgins.

Right, but this article also states, they do not know why there appears to be a benefit in the spread of HIV and circumcision.

Correlation does not equal causation (I learned that in 3rd grade!) and this study could still very well be debunked. At this point, the benefit appears to be from the "lack of folds where HIV could hide" and this same effect could then be found by giving all the African guys a bar of soap and telling them to wash their penises well!

Unfortunately, many people in third world countries DIDN'T get to the third grade, and go more on superstition - which is why the whole raping the virgin to cure HIV idea is so rampant. While I agree with the circumcision idea, I also acknowledge that education and condoms can do even more to stop the spread of HIV.

Though thanks to the Pope condoms may not become so trendy in Africa.