South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

June 19, 2019, 23:08:43 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the forum rules before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Circumcision 'reduces HIV risk'

 (Read 12177 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #15 on: November 12, 2010, 11:03:17 AM »

Not enough reason to be pro-circumcision though.
Logged
kollectiv
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


Searching for truth! And good red wine.


« Reply #16 on: November 24, 2010, 14:44:20 PM »

Quote
Not enough reason to be pro-circumcision though.
Really??  And if you were on a trip to Mars, and you had a finite chance of your appendix rupturing - and a high probability of dying if it did - you wouldn't pre-emptively have it out?

Pretty much the same thing here: if you get circumcised, your chance of getting infected with HIV goes down significantly, for every encounter.  Carry on going long enough, however, and your ship will come in....
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #17 on: November 25, 2010, 09:23:48 AM »

Pretty much the same thing here:
really??

Your appendix fails (for whatever reason) - HIV you basically have to go look for to acquire it. (note - both these are simplified for arguments sake only) Analogy fails. However;


...If you don't have sex on the way to Mars, or only with a partner you can trust, I'd suggest keeping the appendix, (take along a doctor that can perform the necessary operation) make sure any blood for transfusion purposes are clean and keep the skin mate. Always keep the skin. I guess that is just me. What is the probability of an appendix failing btw?

Quote
your chance of getting infected with HIV goes down significantly,
Significantly my ass.

Just to be sure though, you are advocating circumcision then?
Logged
kollectiv
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


Searching for truth! And good red wine.


« Reply #18 on: November 29, 2010, 16:15:11 PM »

Quote
Analogy fails
I don't think so...it doesn't matter HOW you get HIV; if your risk mounts the longer you go on having sex, it's analogous to waiting for your appendix to burst.
Quote
Significantly my ass.

Just to be sure though, you are advocating circumcision then?

It's your ass then!  You don't think the reduction is significant?  Really?  When the vaccine and the therapies have no better impact, yet are touted as being significant?

And yes: circumcision significantly reduces the chances per penetration event of catching HIV from an infected person, so if you were a non-condom-wearing promiscious uncircumcised male, that's exactly what I would advocate.

After A, B, C - and yes, D (do it yourself - masturbation - sex with the one you truly love...B-)
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #19 on: November 30, 2010, 07:42:37 AM »

I don't think so...
You wouldn't. It is your analogy after all. I think it fails on a few important aspects. One being that I don't think the selective appendix surgery is necessary in your Mars analogy in the first place. Not unless you tell me the chances of having a burst appendix is higher than I currently think it is.
Quote
it doesn't matter HOW you get HIV; if your risk mounts the longer you go on having sex, it's analogous to waiting for your appendix to burst.
Well once you tell me the probability of someone's appendix bursting and whether there are extenuating circumstances either way, we can't compare this. But if you are in a monogamous relationship and neither of you have HIV, your chances of actually acquiring HIV (through sex) is zero. Maimed dicks have zero impact. Go figure.
Quote
It's your ass then!
Indeed it is. But how much safer will you actually feel knowing you have a 5% better chance of not getting HIV? Significantly safer? really?
Quote
You don't think the reduction is significant?  Really?  When the vaccine and the therapies have no better impact, yet are touted as being significant?
Really. I don't think it is significant at all. 5% in this case is as good as zero. "You can have all the sex you want. You cannot wear a condom. But we'll cut off a piece of your cock and there is a 5% better chance of not getting HIV!!"  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Quote
And yes: circumcision significantly reduces the chances per penetration event of catching HIV from an infected person, so if you were a non-condom-wearing promiscuous uncircumcised male, that's exactly what I would advocate.
If you are a non-condom-wearing promiscuous uncircumcised or circumcised male you are an idiot an deserves what you'll get. Snipped penii won't (significantly or not) matter. It is almost as bad as thinking a shower will wash it off afterwards!!  
« Last Edit: June 21, 2014, 15:10:07 PM by bluegray, Reason: fix quote link » Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1521



WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 30, 2010, 13:23:30 PM »

I have to agree with cyghost here. If you are doing the rounds without a condom you are asking for it.
Logged
kollectiv
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


Searching for truth! And good red wine.


« Reply #21 on: December 14, 2010, 20:13:12 PM »

Looks like certain folk just don't get the concept of risk reduction...ah, well; not my problem, I'm circumcised AND monogamous and I trust my partner.

But if you weren't any of those things: every little bit helps.  Even the lack of a little bit...B-)
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2012, 11:31:45 AM »

A German judge has deemed circumcision of boys without their consent as bodily harm and an impediment to religious freedom in later life.   here
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1812



WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2012, 11:56:17 AM »

A German judge has deemed circumcision of boys without their consent as bodily harm and an impediment to religious freedom in later life.   here


In principle I kind of agree with the judge, but if the decision is upheld, I fear it will achieve little more than to create an underground "backstreet circumcision" industry, which will likely do more harm than circumcision does at the moment.

As for the circumcision/HIV thing, I wonder if, among South Africa's mostly fairly uneducated and naive populace, there will not soon exist a belief that circumcision immunizes you against HIV, after which people will happily screw around unprotected even more than they already do, with even more infections resulting. The Xhosas are almost all circumcised; as far as I know they do not have low incidences of HIV/AIDS?
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3744


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 28, 2012, 12:40:56 PM »

Once again we are left to marvel at the utter tripe and undiluted hogwash that religious “authorities” are so quick to confect whenever their special privileges come under threat.  Each of these vocal nutcases has barefacedly averred that the court’s ruling is an infringement on religious rights and freedoms.  Predictably, none of them is able to offer any explanation whatsoever of how it constitutes such an infringement to allow a child to choose freely later on in life what religious beliefs and practices to follow simply by deferring their mutilation by a decade or two (that is, insofar as any free choice in this regard is likely to eventuate anyway, given all the other brainwashing that occurs).

The clamour of self-righteous whining is good, for it marks another own-goal by religiotards.

Edit: In any case, circumcision looks awfully like an implicit negative criticism of the applicable god’s design…

'Luthon64
« Last Edit: June 28, 2012, 12:54:47 PM by Mefiante » Logged
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #25 on: June 28, 2012, 13:59:01 PM »

Quote
In any case, circumcision looks awfully like an implicit negative criticism of the applicable god’s design…

brilliant!
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3059



« Reply #26 on: June 28, 2012, 14:26:03 PM »

I'm all for self mutilation, it's a human being's right to do with their bodies what they want. However circumcision at birth is the mutilation of others.

If I started a religion that demands I cut off a piece of earlobe of everyone who does not follow my religion, would it be reasonable for the state to sanction my rampant mutilation spree?

Didn't think so.
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #27 on: June 28, 2012, 16:21:34 PM »

It is reasonable and rational to hold the view that human rights have to become a consideration at some stage during the development of the human foetus.  As with most legal and moral assessments, a clearly defined line does not present itself and a measure of discretion is therefore required.  What can be held with confidence, is that an undeveloped embryo has no rights whatsoever, whereas a baby qualifies as a human being and should have all the rights usually associated with humans, bar certain rights for which adulthood is a prerequisite.  On this basis it is easy to justify early abortion, where the mother's rights should be paramount, while rejecting religious or ritualistic infant circumcision, where the child's rights should prevail.  The ritualistic circumcision of adolescents, as practised widely in South Africa, takes place under tremendous pressure from society and regarding it as free choice is naive.     
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1812



WWW
« Reply #28 on: June 28, 2012, 18:19:17 PM »

I'm all for self mutilation, it's a human being's right to do with their bodies what they want. However circumcision at birth is the mutilation of others.

If I started a religion that demands I cut off a piece of earlobe of everyone who does not follow my religion, would it be reasonable for the state to sanction my rampant mutilation spree?

Didn't think so.

A more accurate analog would be if your religion demanded that you cut off a piece of earlobe from your children shortly after they are born, but your point stands nevertheless, because if you did have such a religion the state would probably prohibit the ritual.
Logged
Jacques
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


JacquesR
WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 29, 2012, 15:46:07 PM »

The idea that circumcision reduces HIV infection risk is being bandied about as if it's unquestionable. But the meta-analyses that conclusion is based on have been strongly criticised, as you can read in this paper: http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.483 seconds with 24 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 26, 2019, 11:45:40 AM
Privacy Policy