Is there a hint of religion in the alleged reduce HIV risk from circumcision?

Question

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?

Answer 1

Whether you are circumcised or not you have an equal chance of contracting HIV if you don't use protection!

As for infection there is a reason guys are given a foreskin so I wouldn't be cutting it off just because religion says it has to go. Good personal hygeine is essential in both cases!

Answer 2

From my understanding, circumcision is something the Christian church left behind with Judaism. It's not a requirement, and I have never heard it discussed in my experience with church.

This is unfortunate, actually, because I am told that along with reducing the risk of transmitting HIV, circumcision also will reduce the risk of cervical cancer in the female partner of the circumcised.

Since gender equality is still an issue in this day and age, I must add that circumcision is not an issue that should be treated equally between the sexes. The circumcision
of women is unfortunately still occurring, and it is criminal.

Answer 3

Moses in the Old Testament was told by God to circumcise the Jewish children. They would always be able to identify themselves as Jews due to being circumcised. Gentiles (all non-Jews) at that time did not do it. That was thousands of years ago before HIV was even known about so I do not think it is/was a "plot" by any religion to gain any kind of control.

Answer 4

>>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?<<

But wouldn’t a man wearing a condom naively assume that because he is wearing a condom, he has much less chance of being infected with HIV, so he would be less likely to use abstinence which is still by far the best protection against HIV regardless of whether or not a man is wearing a condom?

Answer 5

How is circumcision, alleged to reduce HIV infections, related to religion???

In 2005, a rabbi in New York was convicted of passing along genital herpes to FIVE baby boys while performing the Jewish rite of circumcision, two of whom died from the resulting infections... The rite involves the mohel (person performing the operation) to cut the foreskin off, then take the penis in his mouth, sucking off the foreskin and spittting it out - this was how he had passed along genital herpes to babies.... But religious rites need to be protected right?

Answer 6

The God YHWH knew the diease prevention advantage of circumcision in human beings 3500 years ago which He started with Abraham. It has been impossible for mankind until now to interpret this in a scientific way and is a perfect example of how the unintentionally wrong religious interpretation our religious leaders gave this hygiene law by the God YHWH. This is just one of many disease prevention measures God wrote out in the "Laws of Moses" that Africa and all other countries will be forced to follow if they don't want to become extint by the unstoppable spread of aids.

Answer 7

No, its a health issue. Circumcised penises are less likely to contract infections, any infections, than uncircumcised ones. That's just a fact.

Answer 8

Circumsion has been irrelevent for the past two thousand years by Christians. Tolle lege!

Answer 9

I circumcised my kids not because of my religion but, because of the health issues involved.

Answer 10

I think the articles refuting the scientific study were based on religion.