Circumcision protects against AIDS-HIV infection?

Now that health authorities have confirmed after several research studies that circumcision indeed protects against AIDS-HIV infection and lowers the riks of contraction up to 70%, what do you think will be the future of those groups and lobbies that irrationally and fanatically oppose the procedure without any realistic or logical reason?

(See http://www.baby-health.net/articles/381.... and

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlen... )

Please READ the question. I'm not asking if it protects or not. I already know IT DOES. I'm asking what you think will happen with those groups I mention.

Circumcision can save over two million in the next 15 years. This is very serious and should not be taken as a joke.

All these studies have been carried out by prestigious and respectable research institutions and universities, and are back in many cases by official organisations such as the US National Institutions of Health or the World Health Organisation.

Why uncircumcised men are more prone to STD鈥檚?

Scientist have discovered that the skin covering the inner side of the foreskin is by its nature (has a very low amount of a protein called 鈥榢eratin鈥?which stops viruses entering into the body, plus some other factors) acts as an 鈥榦pen door鈥?to STD鈥檚. Circumcision, by removing the foreskin, 鈥榗loses鈥?this 鈥榙oor鈥?

Circumcision rates are increasing nowadays, both in the United States and overseas. Many African and South American countries with little circumcision tradition are starting to promote the procedure to help to reduce the AIDS-HIV infection rates.

The sites below have very interesting information related to this topic. Please have a look.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_rel...

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/viewa...

I am one of those irrational, fanatical people. I don't care if it lowers my sons risk for AIDS/HIV. I hope to teach him not to put himself at risk. No matter what the studies say I say don't ruin what God gave them. I know not everyone will agree with me but that is my opinion.

Also.. I didn't circumcise my son because his father isn't and I didn't want questions like why does mine look different.

I was circumcised when I was 8 days old.

The bloke that did it did a wonderful job.
It fits anything!

Wow that is interesting! Your right now they have a proven fact that it actually has pro's to getting it done, they may make it almost "procedure" or mandatory to push the issue. I feel it's cleaner and healthier to have it done anyway! great topic!

It also has other hygienic benefits, makes it easier to keep clean, and enhances sensation and pleasure.

I think those groups will, in the future, focus on something else instead of saying it can't lower the risk of HIV.

Such as possible pain felt, other similar procedures that we could do but don't (like mastectomy, but that's more radical), etc.

Also possibly the fact that you could avoid the risks of wound infection, skin tags, scarring, unevenness, etc (which are all possibilities) by offering safe sex as an alternative to avoid contracting HIV.

As well as predicting that men who believe circumcision will protect them from HIV may practice unsafe sex because of it, causing them to contract other STDs.

I think that's what'll happen.

We'll still have common sense, genius. There's no logical reason to support these findings, as even those who did the study recognize that it will take EDUCATION to keep the males who were 'successful' in not contracting HIV after being cut from thinking that it IS preventative--and thus ending up all the more LIKELY to contract HIV. In other words, it takes EDUCATION to prevent AIDS--just as we "fanatics" have been saying. So LOGIC says STOP skinning the genitals, and start teaching safe sex.

Never mind the fact that none of this was done on INFANTS, and it was in AFRICA.

*One more thing--it said it could only reduce the *chance* by 50 percent, as compared to the intact penis. None of this says anything about the individual behaviors of the 2800 males, nor does it mean that circumcision prevents a damn thing.

Circumcision has nothing to do with protecting from AIDS-HIV infections. It was a religious practice and is still that among many people.. It is basically a personal health issue and easier to clean one self. In some it makes intercourse more difficult depending on their own bodies if not circumcised. Years ago it was asked if you wanted your baby to be circumcised but most people said yes. I sure wouldn't want to go thr with it as an adult.

no

its stops your child from PASSING IT ON
it does not stop your child from CATCHING IT

your child needs to have HIV first in order for it to be effective,


i wouldnt do it, its unfair and not right - i am a guy and i wouldnt want anyone touch down their other then me

they will all bow down and worship you lol get for real there is more men who are circumsised and have been with aids just use protection and dont kiss or have oral sex

I think if there are radical people, they will always be so, but I don't believe that everyone who is against circumcision will have their opinion changed by this.
I'm not against circumcision for other people, but I will not have it done for my son, even in light of reading this. I think the study is fascinating and important, but we've know since the jews first invented circumcision that it cuts down on the incidence of disease and illness. Circumscising men in Africa may be the best defense IN AFRICA for cutting down on AIDS (like the ancient jews, they don't have a lot of clean wash water), but here in the states we can protect against HIV and infections with proper cleaning, use of condoms, and smart sexual and lifestyle choices, and that is what I will teach my uncircumcised son.

Hopefully, the fanatics out there will read about this study and realize that not everything is black and white, and that what is good for some isn't necessarily good for everyone, and choose to tone down the fanaticism a bit.

They'll do just what you'd expect a fanatic to do. They'll do one or more of the following:

1. Ignore the facts and pretend they don't exist.
2. Try to discredit the people that point out the facts, or their methods of discovering those facts.
3. Go off on some wild tangent to keep your attention off the facts.

What they won't do is start to act rationally and admit that their can be another point of view or that parents should be free to make their own decisions on what is or isn't done with their children when it comes to a medical procedure.

Very good post....there is no shortage of information pointing to circumcision being healthier:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/fi...


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15593753/

Sara

It still comes down to the chioce the parents made with the best interest of the child in mind.

If the grown child later decides to be circumsized, he certainly can be, its not like its a one chance deal.

I personally am having my son circumsized once he gets here, its just good practice. Theres been more studies to prove how beneficial it is, and less that confirm it isnt.

But it still comes down to chioce. And we cant judge others for the education they based their decision on, thats their deal, not ours.

I think its interesting that the person above me states "What God gave him" Since it was the God of the jews, or God himself, who first made it law to circumsize all male children, and everyone knows God doesnt change, laws are simply fullfilled.... Not to be judgemental, i just think its ironic is all.