LovePrevails Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 Is this true? Also has the claim that circumcision prevents aids been debunked? I am really annoyed by someone saying this
LovePrevails Posted March 11, 2014 Author Posted March 11, 2014 "Don't want to disagree with you on your timeline. The WHO promotes circumcision as a means of reducing the rate of HIV infection in men. Three randomised trials in Africa were stopped on ethical grounds, because the infection rate in the uncircumcised group was so much higher than in the circumcised group. Injections and dental treatment also cause distress to children, but few would argue delaying until adulthood. Maybe there is a discussion to be had on parental choice and cultural practice, but the science clearly disagrees [with opposing circumcision on the grounds it prevents HIV and Aids]. HIV and AIDS is a serious blight in much of the world. I think we should all be careful that we are disseminating accurate data. One of my best friends is statistical epidemiologist specialising in the subject, and I have a background in international development, so it's a subject I follow."
dsayers Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 Where is that quote from and by whom? Frame of reference please If we chopped our legs off, we would be immune to broken legs. Amputation is a last resort, not a first defense. What are the statistics of grown men in full possession of their faculties opting for circumcision upon hearing that it could lead to a reduction in the transmission of AIDS? Like every human, I'm at risk of skin disease. I choose bathing over amputating the largest organ of my body. Comparing it to dental work and shots ignores the fact that we're talking about preventative amputation.
TheRobin Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 "Don't want to disagree with you on your timeline. The WHO promotes circumcision as a means of reducing the rate of HIV infection in men. Three randomised trials in Africa were stopped on ethical grounds, because the infection rate in the uncircumcised group was so much higher than in the circumcised group. Injections and dental treatment also cause distress to children, but few would argue delaying until adulthood. Maybe there is a discussion to be had on parental choice and cultural practice, but the science clearly disagrees [with opposing circumcision on the grounds it prevents HIV and Aids]. HIV and AIDS is a serious blight in much of the world. I think we should all be careful that we are disseminating accurate data. One of my best friends is statistical epidemiologist specialising in the subject, and I have a background in international development, so it's a subject I follow." My first thought was along the lines of "If men want their foreskin cut off, they're obviously free to do so if they believe they gain a benefit from it, but that doesn't mean you can cut of part of another mans penis, just cause you think it's better for them". I mean, assuming it is true, then there's still no need to do that to a defensless child, as it is not something that loses it's potency later (unlike say correctional dentist work that is a lot easier before full development of the mouth/skull), so that's certainly no valid principle by which one person can make the decision to cut off a part of another person.
Prairie Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 If it's to reduce the chance of AIDS, why is it being done to infants rather than once the person starts having sex and decides to have their foreskin removed?
GRosado Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 Im already circumcised but I'm wondering if there is a procedure where you can get circumcised at an older age.
Recommended Posts