Apparently, circumcision can reduce the risk of female to male transmission of HIV by as much as 60%. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070724/ts_afp/healthaustraliahiv_070724095550
But I’ve read conflicting accounts of this; http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/menshealth/facts/circumcision.htm the church, motivated by a desire to gain more control, could be up to their usual tricks of not being completely truthful. Then again, there could be truth in this and HIV can be reduced. But wouldn’t a circumcised man naively assume that because he is circumcised, he has much less chance of being infected with HIV, so he would be less likely to use a condom which is still by far the best protection against HIV regardless of whether or not a man is circumcised?
2007-07-24
12:06:51
·
13 answers
·
asked by
Desiree
4
in
Religion & Spirituality