A not-so-happy day for....

<< < (4/5) > >>

Brian (January 21, 2011, 18:01:36 PM):
so why the bullshit of not snipping?

The InterWeb is your friend. Or we can take it to a separate thread, it deserves such really.

Needless to say, not snipped, never had a single problem and the idea that it is somehow *more* hygienic is laughable. Barring a valid medical reason, this barbaric practice needs to stop.

Obviously your experiences and mine differ and that's cool. However,
Quote
the idea that it is somehow *more* hygienic is laughable.
is seemingly not so laughable: read here: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Why-is-it-necessary.aspx
and this: http://www.mrc.ac.za/public/facts19.htm
Quote
What has led to the current debate on male circumcision?
The current debate was instigated by mainly three observational studies that have been done in Sub-Saharan Africa. These three studies were conducted to determine the influence of circumcised men (as opposed to uncircumcised men) on HIV-infection. The findings of the three studies were as follows10:

Observational study

Researchers & Date

Main result of the study

South Africa (Orange Farm): Randomized, Controlled Intervention Trial of Male Circumcision for Reduction of HIV Infection Risk: The ANRS 1265 Trial.

Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, Sobngwi-Tambekou J, Sitta R, Puren A.
Date: November 2005. The trail lasted for 2 years.

The results of the Orange Farm trial suggested that the risk of HIV infection was reduced by 60% in circumcised men.

Uganda: Trial of Male Circumcision: HIV, STD and Behavioural Effects in Men, Women and the Community.

Serwadda D, Wawer M, Gray R.
Date: 2006

Adult male circumcision reduced the risk of acquiring HIV-infection by 48 percent.

Kenya: Trial of Male Circumcision to Reduce HIV Incidence.

Bailey R, Moses S, Maclean I, Parker C, Ndinya-Achola JO, Agot K, Krieger J.
Date: 2006

Adult male circumcision reduced the risk of acquiring HIV-infection by 53 percent.

What are the consequences of these results?
Brian Williams et al, designed a simulation model, based on the abovementioned trials, to predict the impact of male circumcision on the relative prevalence of HIV in men and women11. They concluded, “Assuming that full coverage of male circumcision is achieved over the next ten years, male circumcision could avert 2 million new HIV-infections and 0.3 million deaths. In the 10 years after that, it could avert a further 3.7 million new infections and 2.7 million deaths”12.

One must remember that male circumcision is only partially effective in HIV-positive female transmission to HIV-negative circumcised males.

By now the obvious benefits of male circumcision should be clear: it can indeed lessen the transmission of HIV. There are, as always, some conditions. Dr Catherine Hankins, chief scientific adviser to UNAIDS, gives valuable insight into possible problem areas with regard to male circumcision13.

Since adult circumcision has a higher risk of adverse effect, one must propagate infant male circumcision;
This procedure should always be undertaken by trained health workers in safe, adequately equipped facilities, under sanitary conditions and further enhanced by appropriate pre and post-surgical counselling and follow-up;
Cultural, religious and traditional values will always play a part and one will have to take these into account;
male circumcision for adults should be done with consent; otherwise it becomes a violation of that person’s human rights. In the case of a child, the parents or legal guardian should give consent; and
male circumcision has shortcomings:
It applies only to female-to-male transmission;
It is not 100% safe and should be treated as an additional preventative measure; and
Other known methods, such as abstinence, limitation to one sexual partner and the use of condoms, are still to be advocated.


Whether it is indeed barbaric or not, or infringes the rights of a child seem to depend on the morals (another thread?) of a particular society (relativism, indeed! ???), as it is seen to be a norm in many for either manhood rites (Xhosas) or religious considerations. Between 60 and 66% of boys are circumcised in the US and while this does not constitute an argument for its retention as a procedure, it is a societal norm. Apparently in Sweden only 3% of boys are circumcised.

I have no doubt that the religious justification (which I reject by the way), stems from hygiene issues (lack of water in the deserts of the Jews and Arabs)in any case.
I object to the discrimination that I am not allowed to have it done, and those who pray to some mythical entity, can!
cyghost (January 23, 2011, 10:41:54 AM):
Obviously your experiences and mine differ and that's cool.

Obviously
Quote
However,
Quote
the idea that it is somehow *more* hygienic is laughable.
is seemingly not so laughable: read here: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Why-is-it-necessary.aspx
and this: http://www.mrc.ac.za/public/facts19.htm

What has that to do with hygiene??


Two things though - this and here

Quote from: some of the studies that disagree
Mishra et al. (2006) used data collected from the Demographic and Health Surveys and found that HIV prevalence was "considerably higher in urban areas and for women, especially at younger ages. Adults in wealthier households, in polygamous unions, being widowed/divorced/separated, having multiple sex partners, and having reported STIs had higher HIV rates than other adults. No consistent relationship between male circumcision and HIV risk was observed in most countries."[55]

Way et al. (2006) also used data from Demographic and Health Surveys in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, and Malawi and from AIDS Indicator Surveys in Tanzania and Uganda to conduct his study. They found that "With age, education, wealth status, and a number of sexual and other behavioral risk factors controlled statistically, in only one of the eight countries were circumcised men at a significant advantage. In the other seven countries, the association between circumcision and HIV status was not statistically significant for the male population as a whole."[56]

Garenne (2006) has doubts about circumcision's value in reducing HIV,[57] and Talbott (2007), in a controversial paper[58] stated that cross country regression data pointed to prostitution as the key factor in the AIDS epidemic rather than circumcision.[59] World Health Organization AIDS Prevention Team official Tim Farley disagreed with the findings of the paper, while Chris Surridge, PLoS One's managing editor, defended its publication.[60] In 1999 the American Medical Association had stated, "behavioral factors are far more important in preventing these infections than the presence or absence of a foreskin."[61]

If proper hygienic procedures are not adhered to, the circumcision operation itself can spread HIV. Brewer et al. (2007)[62] report, "[circumcised] male and female virgins were substantially more likely to be HIV infected than uncircumcised virgins. Among adolescents, regardless of sexual experience, circumcision was just as strongly associated with prevalent HIV infection. However, uncircumcised adults were more likely to be HIV positive than circumcised adults." They concluded: "HIV transmission may occur through circumcision-related blood exposures in eastern and southern Africa."

Van Howe et al. criticise the drive to promote circumcision in Africa, asking "Why are circumcision proponents expending so much time and energy promoting mass circumcision to North Americans when their supposed aim is to prevent HIV in Africa? The circumcision rate is declining in the US, especially on the west coast; the two North American national paediatric organisations have elected not to endorse the practice, and the practice’s legality has been questioned in both the medical and legal literature. ‘Playing the HIV card’ misdirects the fear understandably generated in North Americans by the HIV/AIDS pandemic into a concrete action: the perpetuation of the outdated practice of neonatal circumcision."[63]

Connolly et al. (2008) found that "circumcision had no protective effect in the prevention of HIV transmission. This is a concern, and has implications for the possible adoption of the mass male circumcision strategy both as a public health policy and an HIV prevention strategy."[64]

Sidler et al. (2008) say that using neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision to combat the HIV crisis in Africa is neither medically nor ethically justifiable. Furthermore, promoting circumcision might worsen the problem by creating a false sense of security and therefore undermining safe sex practices. Education, female economic independence, safe sex practices and consistent condom use are proven effective measures against HIV transmission.[65]

Boiley et al. (2008) found that the protection of circumcision against STI contributes little to the overall effect of circumcision on HIV.[66]

And number two

The whole HIV argument is a red herring

The argument is not against sane (??) adult men making an informed decision for themselves at the right time but against maiming babies who has no such ability. Babies and children don’t go around having sex with various partners which would expose them to this risk.

And just a third thing, what the hell, if anyone thinks that being circumcised is a license to screw around as they please without a care in the world, they are surely in for a rude surprise. You will get HIV, circumcised or not. So it is really a bullshit argument through and through.
Quote
Whether it is indeed barbaric or not, or infringes the rights of a child seem to depend on the morals (another thread?) of a particular society (relativism, indeed! ???), as it is seen to be a norm in many for either manhood rites (Xhosas) or religious considerations. Between 60 and 66% of boys are circumcised in the US and while this does not constitute an argument for its retention as a procedure, it is a societal norm. Apparently in Sweden only 3% of boys are circumcised.

It does unnecessary harm with little to no benefit. My definition of immoral. And it does so to helpless, uninformed babies. My definition of barbaric.
Quote
I have no doubt that the religious justification (which I reject by the way), stems from hygiene issues (lack of water in the deserts of the Jews and Arabs)in any case.
I object to the discrimination that I am not allowed to have it done, and those who pray to some mythical entity, can!

Agreed. It shouldn't be allowed at all except for valid medical reasons.
st0nes (January 24, 2011, 06:41:53 AM):
Nobody asked my permission before hacking off the tip of my prick, and I feel some resentment about that. There can be no excuse for the deliberate mutilation of a child.
murraybiscuit (January 24, 2011, 16:56:16 PM):
yeah. the penn & teller episode pretty much sums it up.
murraybiscuit (January 24, 2011, 17:07:42 PM):
back to the o.p. though, some friends from finland made a comment yesterday about christening their godson a few months back.
they were shocked to learn that south africans regularly attend church on sundays.
honestly, if you're just going to adopt religion for birth, marriage and death, what the hell is the point?
that just pisses me off.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page