Skip to comments.Officials Weigh Circumcision to Fight H.I.V. Risk
Posted on 08/23/2009 6:12:04 PM PDT by Gordon Greene
click here to read article
Can you suppose that maybe these villages had many traditional religious beliefs...but were generally secular in their morals.
They were "straight" although obviously very promiscuous........
check the literature.
BS to you also. Wash your dick, soap and water. There is no upside to circumcision. It is mutilation of infants and has no health value. It is done purely for religious reasons and so the hospital can tack on another charge when your child is born.
I assure you I read it...and quite likely here on FR.
It was a real study with real results.....
But frankly I could care less...if anyone believes me.....because here on FR anymore...even if I sited page, paragraph and sentence with footnotes and government stamps...someone would question it's birth certificate.
You could look it up yourself...if you want. The net is your slave.
I'm tired....and worked a long 13 hrs today.
But I will give it a go tomorrow...and see if I can find it.
Being in the science field...it was an interesting study..and one that made sense to me.
I never once said I supported "forced circumcision" ya dingbat! : ) I posted about a study that I read. That was it.
I'm tired....you go bark up another tree, eh.
I'm going to bed soon.......
I read it...and it was a scientific study.
I can't help it...if you don't believe it.
Look it up for yourself.....
I will try and find it tomorrow....I'm tired.
I never once said I supported “forced circumcision” ya dingbat! : ) I posted about a study that I read. That was it.
You’re working with Obama now, dude.
I read it...and it was a scientific study.
I’m not circumcised, both my sons are. Not a one of us regrets our condition.
As for that poster who compared it to a hair cut or nail clipping - I’ve never had a painful hair cut or nail clipping. My hair and nails don’t bleed when I get them cut and so far they both grow back, though I do have a bald spot now, that is probably due to my age though.
I fought ya? ha!!
Gimme some slack here, beelze!! Geesh...lol!! Ya killing me.......
I posted about a scientific study...that I read about, ya nut! : )
BTW...look up the "link" for yourself. (vbg)
I read about it maybe 2-4 years ago...if my memory serves me correctly.
Hell dude...I'd rather cut off my own foreskin again.....than work for Obama.
Gawd...what's in the H20 here tonight!?!?!?
Good nite dude........
Underlying any discussion of circumcision or not is the extreme reluctance of most circumcised males to even consider that their parents made the wrong decision for them, or that they made the wrong decision for their son(s).
I say teach boys good hygiene and let them decide when they’re adults, at least if the decision is not dictated by religious beliefs.
Maybe start with the legislature! At least the statists.
And finish with the Executive.
Cheerful and goofy isn’t persuasive, I’m afraid.
This was one of Perry's most embarrassing moments. Hopefully it will be for Ø as well.
Interestingly, there is now some growing evidence that Guardacil, the brand name for the vaccine, may cause dangerous side effects, including death. So much for the remedy that's worse than the disease.
There is an irony here....
—Where’s the Roe V Wade crowd when you need them?
How can the government leave women’s privates alone, yet go after men’s?
It won’t work for many reasons, ne of which is Africa has other strain of HIV. It is rare in this country for men to get it from women, not so for Africa.
Lack of understanding/comprehension...isn't helpful either I'm afraid....
Here's 3 scientific study's....
Let's just set the record straight for the folks here that can figure out what I did say from the beginning...and what I never said.
I did make the statement...that I circumcision has shown to reduce the chance of AIDS. Period.
I never said....I was for mandated/forced circumcision...
Not a lot I could do about it now, anyway...
Not being entirely flippant, but I expect that when science is able to grow new organs for transplant in the future, simpler parts replacement will also be available for those who might want it. That is unless Obamacare becomes law and removes too much of the profit incentive from medical research and from the services offered.
Mine left me babbling and incoherent. I wasn't able to speak in full sentences for a couple years!
Indeed. The only men who are in a position to compare are those that were circumcised after becoming sexually active. Even then a man who chose to have himself circumcised and wishes he hadn’t may refuse to admit that he regrets it.
I think their female partners should be asked as well, because there IS a difference.
Correlation, not causation. See my earlier post. And Africa is an extremely different place that America, medically speaking. Worlds away in terms of HIV and AIDS and behaviors and medical context.
Mere correlation easily explained by other factors. (The most superstitious primitives don’t circumcise, and also have sex practices that lead to AIDS, while the more modern cultures have more circumcision and more civilized sex practices. Or if you want a simple explanation, lack of access to medical advice and treatment correlates well with both AIDS and non-circumcision, even if those two things are entirely unrelated.
Not a study, but a literature review. Found only association. See above.
See how interesting it is when you don’t accept “studies” unquestioningly?
I knew when I posted the studies...you would disagree. Go back and read my ORIGINAL post.
The FACT is you projected thoughts and deeds on me...that was flat out B.S. and any objective person could see that.
I've been pretty civil about this, and will refrain from dropping down to whatever level you are on....but like I said, I'm done with you.
You will have the last word.
Take it away, beelze.
You made what you thought was the best decision for your son. My wife and I made the opposite decision for our sons believing that was in their best interests. The decision you made on behalf of your son is none of my business nor is the decision we made on behalf of our sons any of your business. Certainly, the government has no right to insert itself into the decision.
Frankly, I think that both sides on this debate greatly exaggerate their medical positions. Both sides greatly overstate the consequences of the decision on a minor medical procedure. I'm amazed how emotional some people get over this issue.
I don't think that male circumcision is a big deal, one way or the other. I do think that the issue of mandatory compliance (either way) is a big deal and all freedom-loving people should oppose.
This issue should make for some interesting signs at townhall meetings.
“Gosh, you dont think that cultures with different religious beliefs might not have different sexual practices and morals?”
Great point. Thanks fer makin’ me feel stoopid!
(I should have made that point)
“I rely on reason, thank you very much.
I dont have imaginary friends or overlords- especially the melodramatic kinds shaped by human imagination.”
You have some very solid points and some great insight... it’s a pity to ruin that with the outright slander of something others hold sacred. It’s well within your rights to believe as you wish. An answer that stopped at the first sentence would have been more genteel and answered the question quite well... your full answer went beyond reason and into the realm of the unreasonable. Your wish, I believe was to slap down the person with whom your argument began, but instead you struck all who hold a belief in God.
For a person who claims to rely on “reason” that’s seems to be uncharmingly uncharacteristic.
“Lets let men decide for themselves, OK?
Instead of letting the government decide how much of your penis you get to keep?”
I agree with this addition... the parents have a right to decide as well.
It is a subsciption service so I only saw the one page on AIDs which is NOT CANCER as we were discussing. One item did catch my attention was that Islamists had less AIDS than Christians. At least according to your source.
Another subscription service but your link did say that the study supports the hypothesis that lack of circumcism is an AIDs risk. Again, nothing on Cancer and no real correlation.
Nothing that I looked up was subscription.
We were talking about cancer???
Dang....I am so confused now.
Not the first time................................
Among Muslims in Kigali, Rwanda , circumcision was associated with a protective effect (crude RR 0.18, CI 0.02±1.20). Little association was seen among Christians (crude RR 0.79, CI 0.50±1.23),
And they go on to say that this non-effect may be because Christians are circumcised post-puberty.
although this could be because, unlike Muslims, most Christians were circumcised post-puberty.
However, they continue on to show a pupulation where post-puberty circumcism has a higher effect!
In contrast, among men in rural Mwanza , circumcision before 15 years was associated with an increased risk of HIV (adjusted RR 1.50, CI 0.57±3.90), whereas circumcision at age 15 years or older was associated with a lower HIV risk (adjusted RR 0.37, CI 0.18±0.74). The reasons for these discrepant ®ndings are unclear, and further work on the effect of age at circumcision on HIV susceptibility is needed.
They do admit that self-reporting is not reliable.
Circumcision was determined by self-report in 16 studies, and by clinical examination in eight studies. For four further studies [35±38] the method of ascertainment was not clear. Validity of self-reported circumcision was assessed among factory workers in Mwanza . Of the 111 men who had reported they were circumcised, only 69% were found to be so on examination. Among the 91 men who reported themselves as uncircumcised, 94% were found to be uncircumcised on examination. This suggests that selfreported circumcision may overestimate the proportion of men circumcised in this population,
Even though they don't mention such preventive measures as washing and keeping it zipped, they do admit that putting a circumcism program into place may not be the answer and may make the situation worse.
including the possibility that men may increase their risky sexual behaviour if they think circumcision confers a high degree of protection,
What about female circumcision?
The second led me to a message that the fee in $36 dollars a day for access. You are right. We were not talking about Cancer. I just got home and hadn't gone back to see which conversation you were responding to.
I must be on a roll.......
I agree with this addition... the parents have a right to decide as well.
Do babies (and fetuses) have the right to their own life and intact bodies?
Well, unnecessary mutilation of genitals to appease a god is pretty backward, however much one might want to spin the barbarity.
On that, I am absolutely opposed. Male circumcision is a minor modification of the male genitalia which doesn't impede any normal function. Female circumcision truly is genital mutiliation which does impede the normal functioning of the genitalia. There is no medical reason supporting its practice and volumes of research opposing its practice.
I see male circumcision like getting ears pierced and female circumcision as getting an ear cut off. Because of the difference in the severity of the consequences, I think it is reasonable to treat the two situations in a different manner.
Spin it how you like, but God was not just looking for a gift of appeasement. The laws and restrictions that were laid down to follow in the scriptures were more obviously related to preserving the people and their health than to appeasing God. The problem here is that the people were backward in the ways of health and self preservation in a lot of respects. The New Testament made it clear that a lot of the restrictions that were given were no longer necessary (like in what we could and could not eat). It’s also true that by then the ability to prepare food, cleanliness and health / medicine had also advanced. This is my own interpretation, but the texts support it.
You’re inability to see or understand a thing does not make it untrue... and a British accent, contrary to Hollywood’s presentation of it, does not prove one’s intelligence.
Just so you know, I have a British accent in my head so when I’m typing it does makes me feel smarter.
And, last night I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express.
But that's just how I roll.
I need face. I need personality when it comes to those "things."
BTW, "How do you guys walk around with those things."
Didn't read the full thread (yet) but I'm sure something was posted regarding Lainey.
Yes, Daffynition I know you're one of my kind I still had to ping ya.
In my limited sample
Uncircumsised men make much better lovers.
Circumcision Peels the Potato; Neutering Juliennes It
Man: We had him circumcised.
Man: Yeah, whatever you do with dogs. You know...
Man: Isn't that the same thing?
Overheard by: Nettle
via Overheard in New York, Aug 21, 2009
Especially since there is no evolutionary viaility...
OK, here goes.
An old Indian chief notices that when his grandson was born, he was circumcised. The old chief decides he’s going to get circumcised too.
He goes to a doctor and asks what it will cost. The doctor says $500. The old chief says “Ug, too much.” So he goes to a second doctor. He asks the doctor what it will cost, the doctor says $250. The old chief says “Ug, too much.” So he goes to a third doctor. He asks the doctor what it will cost, the doctor says $100. The old chief says “Ug, too much.”
So the old chief decides he’s going to take the matter into his own hands, so to speak. He takes out his dong, puts it on a log, and gives it a mighty whack with his trusty tomahawk. When he looks at the result, he says “Ug, too much”.
Circumsize all adult gay males first.
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.