Posted on 08/23/2009 6:12:04 PM PDT by Gordon Greene
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.
Experts are also considering whether the surgery should be offered to adult heterosexual men whose sexual practices put them at high risk of infection. But they acknowledge that a circumcision drive in the United States would be unlikely to have a drastic impact: the procedure does not seem to protect those at greatest risk here, men who have sex with men.
Recently, studies showed that in African countries hit hard by AIDS, men who were circumcised reduced their infection risk by half. But the clinical trials in Africa focused on heterosexual men who are at risk of getting H.I.V. from infected female partners...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
That’s disgusting.
Disgusting, yet funny. It amazes me the folks that claim a behavior is something that they were born with. You are not born with particular behaviors... they are learned.
There are much more natural, God-ordained ways to take care of our physical requirements and none of them consist of putting things where they do not belong (I was a little worried this post would be dangerous).
My “snake” will keep its turtleneck sweater!
Not “dangerous” at all! (though the queers will be hissing;)
Just cut the entire thing off of all queers and cure the HIV problem!
I don’t think the ‘strongly approve of Obama’ left will continue to strongly approve him after this. :)
TMI.
I wonder if they might consider promoting the idea that men should not engage in anal sex.
So I’d change your prescription to a prohibition on anal sex without a condom, instead of the government goons disfiguring (in a profound way) every male baby.
How pathetic, mutilate babies because they might become gay one day. To be specific, it’s not whether there’s a foreskin on the penis that matters, it’s where you stick the penis that counts.
“instead of the government goons disfiguring (in a profound way) every male baby.”
Extreme exageration if not total false!!!
I have no doubt that Obamacare will cover this mutilation.
You mean that God may actually have had an additional reason (or perhaps He added the reason) for requiring circumcision? Whoda thunk it?
Circumcision also makes a transference of germs less resulting in fewer infections for the women of circumcised men.
Disclaimer: that last is something I was told by a doc a few years ago and I do not have any documentation for it.
Hissing... that’s a funny word.
I know. Are there some in the FR? If so, I may have to be careful about using words like queer, fag, homo, dyke and the like. Always the sensitive metro-sexual male, you know.
Circumcision has been known for many, many years now to reduce the chance of AIDS...
The hard, desensitised callus skin formed on the glans because of the protective foreskin being removed might have an influence in preventing minor cuts during intercourse that might lower chances of picking up HIV and other STDs...
But aside from HIV, there are a lot of benefits to circumcision aside from that. There is only upside to circumcision with regard to health.
Pulling all a child’s teeth prevents cavities, too. Maybe teaching brushing is wiser. Let adults decide whether to disfigure themselves.
Why the hell pussy-foot around with circumcision?
Go for full-bore castration!
If they can circumcise you by force, they can just as easily castrate you!
Damn! Am I the only one who gets it??
I have been begging the surgeons to please remove my appendix. They want to wait until it becomes “acute.”
I have “chronic appendicitis” meaning it does become infected and swollen off-and-on (Margaret Hullahan in M*A*S*H had it in one show) and usually it settles down again with an antibiotic and fasting. But, it could burst and require emergency surgery.
I live in the jungle. Emergencies are not good. Wouldn’t it be better just to have the thing out?
In regards to the foreskin, God commanded the removal and it doesn’t serve any purpose. Why not remove it when there are benefits?
If you make it through these layman's resources, drop me a line and I'll send you a fairly easy to understand scientific paper on the subject that will absolutely blow your mind.
All the best--GGG
Extreme exageration if not total false!!!
“Wouldn’t you like to see all government officials circumcised”
Without Anesthesia, Madame!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.