You do not agree with circumcision? Why?

Question

If you do not agree; see this article posted on MSNBC today that proves circumcision is good!
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13812938/?GT1=8307

Answer 1

That article can't be trust, yet. It's incomplete. It doesn't say if circumcision and HIV rates are a causation or correlation. We don't know if it's really because of the circumcision or other cultural practices, like monogamy and such. The article doesn't provide a pathological nor physiological answer, though it hints at a possibility.

It would be hazardous to alter entire cultures like that. If, for example, circumcision was found to not have a real impact 10 years after-the-fact, or someone develops a vaccine to HIV, it'll already be ingrained into the culture and difficult to reverse. Also, who's going to carry out the circumcisions? Not the tribal people I hope, as people would die of infections! Oh, wouldn't that defeat the purpose?

The article says that circumcision may reduce HIV contraction by like 65%. But if you tell people that circumcision will protect you partially against HIV, then they'll probably also be more likely to have sex. Let's say someone has sex 100 times a year, and is uncircumcised. Now what would happen if that person has sex 165 times a year after being circumcised? Well, wouldn't that completely defeat the purpose?

No, the better answer is to promote condom use, promote monogamy, etc. It's far less invasive to promote education and responsible behavior.

Lastly, let's assume the article is true. But people don't want circumcisions. What then? Well, the article offers hope still. Research can be done to block HIV from entering these cells. Pathological and physiological research on this would not only help men but probably women as well, because we would know more of how HIV can enter the body and prevent it, with medicine, not surgery. Even better is that this reseearch may lead to a vaccine. In other words, those researchers should be applying this "study" towards real medicine, rather than trying to change an entire continent's penis.

Answer 2

that research has not yet been published in a medical journal.

the reputable british medical science journal, the lancet, has refused to publish it.

two randomised controlled trials in kenya and uganda have not been completed yet. the results of these will be important to consider in evaluating the target study, since they can act as replications. it is unclear whether these are done by independent researchers however.

these factors point to a definite conclusion for now: the assertion that foreskin removal CAUSES a reduction in AIDS has not been proven.

this is important to consider, also, in light of the research saying that the foreskin is a valuable part of the immune system, protecting from urinary tract infections and secreting fluid which may actually fight hiv/aids.

lastly, as the wallstreet journal said, the results of the two extra rct's in kenya and uganda will be factored into any policy recommendations to african countries, as the medical fraternity has been burned severely in the past (and predictably so) by making recommendations on the basis of one study.

i guess it boils down the the question: "if the opposite turned out to be true, it would be a real shame having removed the foreskins of as many males as possible, wouldn't it?"

This possibility has not been ruled out yet, especially on the basis of this unpublished research which i, without having read anything more than the wallstreet journal article on it, suspect may be riddled with nonspecific treatment effects (i've done honours level research methods... pardon the parlance, google it).

an objective introduction to the foreskin is listed below.

therein is why i do not agree with foreskin removal (aka "circumcision").

Answer 3

AIDS will not be prevented by circumcision. It can only be prevented by safe sex practices. It is unhealthy that we Americans are promoting penile reduction surgery as a "cure" for AIDS in undeveloped countries. People in these countries will believe that once they are circumcised they won't have to need wear a condom to prevent AIDS.

Incidentally it is a common fallacy in Africa that having sex with a virgin will "cure" AIDS too. Babies under two are given a death sentence by being raped after some desperate fool heard something false like that.

America has the highest circumcision rate in the world and it also has the highest AIDS rates in the western world.

Answer 4

Turns out I found the same article here too in this morning's paper!


I totally understand the reasons behind circumcision, I personally believe that it can be a more healthier option. But I still believe that it is up to the person, it is their choice and good for you if you choose yes or no!

But i guess im still all for it!

Answer 5

I do not agree that anyone but the person with the penis should decide whether or not to have part of the penis cut off. Infant circumcision should be abolished and it is hogwash that that will stop or slow aids. What will stop or slow aids is people to stay monogamous and not go whoring around with anyone and everyone

Answer 6

Yeah ,i highly agree with it good to keep your body clean , it would also save some lives (slow HIV infections).

Answer 7

when you get circumcisized, you turn into a monkey and that isn't fun