sbk there is good hard evidence that circumcision does significantly reduce HIV transmission (female to male) in very high risk countries, for the most part: AFRICA.

And how many infants or young children will be having sex and therefore need protecting against contacting HIV?

Dbl post

sbk there is good hard evidence that circumcision does significantly reduce HIV transmission (female to male) in very high risk countries, for the most part: AFRICA.

And how many infants or young children will be having sex and therefore need protecting against contacting HIV?

It's easier to do in infancy. Obvious, infants don't have sex. Why did you even ask such a loaded question? Anyway, in Africa adults are being encouraged to do it but for some that would be too late.

easier for whom? the baby is the only one affected. So it can be done at adulthood & still have the same medical benefits in relation to std's.

Should I have my ear lobes removed?

If you did then you'd have given consent. The question should be 'shall we remove SC's earlobes without asking him if he wants them removing'?

Here is another link for you to not read that although quite extreme make some very valid points.

I read your links:

Policy Statement. This site does not pretend to be "balanced".

Yes, I prefer medical science to "quite extreme" activists with an obvious agenda.

A new study, highlighted at last week's XVI International AIDS Conference in Toronto, has found that circumcision is almost as good as a high-quality vaccine at preventing HIV infection in South Africa. An earlier study had found that circumcised men in sub-Sahara Africa were less than half as likely than uncircumcised men to contract HIV. And the U.S. National Institutes of Health has green-lighted the continuation of circumcision studies in Uganda and Kenya. http://www.livescien...ction-hype.html

easier for whom? the baby is the only one affected. So it can be done at adulthood & still have the same medical benefits in relation to std's.

There are long term health benefits which for the most part come about after the age where a person is deemed able to decide for themself. The argument seems to be centered around doing the best for ones male offspring before they were in a position to choose it, it seems. It has long been known that both dogs and horses live longer when they are neutered (gonadectomy for both sexes) and is now known to be the same for humans +-14 years. No doubt I will get the same from the FGM / circumcision proponents which will no doubt result in very poorly worded arguments. To those who do I ask one question... The biggest cause of death is life itself, if a parent sees its child die of old age... why should we not prosecute them for manslaughter?

sbk there is good hard evidence that circumcision does significantly reduce HIV transmission (female to male) in very high risk countries, for the most part: AFRICA.

And how many infants or young children will be having sex and therefore need protecting against contacting HIV?

Children often have sex at very young ages these days. Are parents going to entrust a twelve year old boy with such an important medical decision? Protecting immature children is what parents are for.

easier for whom? the baby is the only one affected. So it can be done at adulthood & still have the same medical benefits in relation to std's.

To those who do I ask one question... The biggest cause of death is life itself, if a parent sees its child die of old age... why should we not prosecute them for manslaughter?

It would seem highly unlikely that very few parents will see their child or children die of old age. The risk taken by the parents of being prosecuted for manslaughter would probably be acceptable.

easier for whom? the baby is the only one affected. So it can be done at adulthood & still have the same medical benefits in relation to std's.

To those who do I ask one question... The biggest cause of death is life itself, if a parent sees its child die of old age... why should we not prosecute them for manslaughter?

It would seem highly unlikely that very few parents will see their child or children die of old age. The risk taken by the parents of being prosecuted for manslaughter would probably be acceptable.

Would it not be acceptable otherwise?

easier for whom? the baby is the only one affected. So it can be done at adulthood & still have the same medical benefits in relation to std's.

To those who do I ask one question... The biggest cause of death is life itself, if a parent sees its child die of old age... why should we not prosecute them for manslaughter?

It would seem highly unlikely that very few parents will see their child or children die of old age. The risk taken by the parents of being prosecuted for manslaughter would probably be acceptable.

Would it not be acceptable otherwise?

Nope.

PS: Please don't alter my posts if/when you quote them in the future.

Fair enough it has a beneficial effect in high risk countries. Baby Boo, last I looked is not in a high risk country and alot what makes a place high risk are cultural norms of behavior and education.

Parents can *choose* to educate their child about the dangers of STDs, the importance of cleanliness, condoms etc without having to circumcise. If they choose not to do these things and would rather circumcise because they are too damn lazy to teach their sons these things then they shouldn't be having kids.

Fair enough it has a beneficial effect in high risk countries. Baby Boo, last I looked is not in a high risk country and alot what makes a place high risk are cultural norms of behavior and education.

Parents can *choose* to educate their child about the dangers of STDs, the importance of cleanliness, condoms etc without having to circumcise. If they choose not to do these things and would rather circumcise because they are too dam_n lazy to teach their sons these things then they shouldn't be having kids.

Would you regard Thailand as a high risk country?

There are STDs in every country and education is fine, but teenagers often ignore it when aroused. Of course, if a parent does not want to circumcise.their children, that is their right, but parents that feel that it will benefit their child should have the same right to a choice.

I have no issue with people having it done, when it is their own penis they are doing it to & not to that of a baby given no choice.

It doesn't prevent aids or std's it "may" reduce the risk of contracting it but the risk is still there. Education is the way forward. There are men without foreskins who have HIV & Aids. Fact. Men without foreskins carry STD's. Fact.

That it is being suggested as a way to slow down the rapid growth of AIDS in Africa, well this is a band aid to a bigger issue of men thinking having sex with virgins & young girl children is a cure. Not really the best example to use in an argument really imo.

That's just semantics. Of course reduction of risk translates into prevention for every man who doesn't get infected that would have become infected if not cut. These public health campaigns are for very high risk countries only. Sheryl in the health forum made it clear that Thailand does not meet the standard of a very high risk country so promoting mass circumcision in Thailand for public health HIV prevention rationale is not being done because of that.

It is true babies have no choice. Anyway, for any nations that do decide to outlaw circumcision, I hope they don't persecute Jews and Muslims who MUST do this procedure as part of their religious observance.

No its not.

Skin gets stretched enuff with a boner already,

let alone if there was a skin deficit to begin with

All of you good folks railing about child abuse brings to mind this question. How do you feel about aborting a viable fetus after the first trimester?

I'm just curious if you, generic "you", believe the unborn child should be allowed to develop and then let them decide at some later stage in their life whether they want to live or die, or simply abort them and give them no option.

Just something to ponder.

my view is a fetus is not a baby, therefore not a person, once the fetus has gestated enough to function alone outside of the womb then it becomes a viable human being. prior to that it relies on the incubator (mother) & her rights take precedent as they should. But as a circumcision can only take place on a living human baby that has already gestated & separated from the incubation of the mother then this has nothing to do with the disucssion at hand.

That's just semantics. Of course reduction of risk translates into prevention for every man who doesn't get infected that would have become infected if not cut. These public health campaigns are for very high risk countries only. Sheryl in the health forum made it clear that Thailand does not meet the standard of a very high risk country so promoting mass circumcision in Thailand for public health HIV prevention rationale is not being done because of that.

It is true babies have no choice. Anyway, for any nations that do decide to outlaw circumcision, I hope they don't persecute Jews and Muslims who MUST do this procedure as part of their religious observance.

Is it mandated within the religion that you must snip your children? Or only that religious Jews and Muslims must be snipped? It seems to be presupposing the religion of the child to obligatorily chop them. I am lucky that my religion is one of choice and faith but I appreciate that others may be condemned to a religion by their birth. I'm not sure how freedom of religion legislation affects such condemnation

SC

Speaking for Jews only, Jews are more than a religion. We are a PEOPLE with a tribal sensibility and that includes the secular and religious. Being circumcised is part of the package, or more like not part of the package, hehehe. As a gay man I know something about dicks, and believe me, I am HAPPY to born into this custom. There is a very small movement among secular and "reform" Jews against circumcision but it is a small minority. So it is not required per se for the non-religious, but it may as well be.

I don't really know from Muslims but never met a Muslim man sporting a foreskin. Have you?!?

Overall, I think the objections to circumcising infants are making a mountain out of molehill. That's the ideal time to do it and with modern methods it is very safe.

One exception would be super religious rabbis who insist on traditionally sucking the blood away rather than using a sterile instrument. That I think is wrong as it is a stupid health risk in this modern age where we understand disease causation.

Yes, I admit it. I am PRO circumcision. I think it is unfortunate that America is slipping away from being a cut nation. Frankly, I never really thought about this much until these militant PC fanatics starting acting up and are actually trying to make LAWS against circumcision. That is so wrong!

Again, I would support a law against using primitive surgical methods.

How about focusing on some really serious issues in the world other than this nothing of an issue? Like global climate change for example?

militant PC fanatics

are human rights fanatical then?

One exception would be super religious rabbis who insist on traditionally sucking the blood away rather than using a sterile instrument. That I think is wrong as it is a stupid health risk in this modern age where we understand disease causation.

but I thought it was their religion, so it must be ok to do it like this regardless of the danger? No different your wanting to outlaw this practice than me saying it is wrong to do it in infancy, Make it the choice of the boy at maturity. For Jews it could be part of the bar mitzva process.

How about focusing on some really serious issues in the world other than this nothing of an issue? Like global climate change for example?

you really must be joking? do you really think that people should only focus on one issue or is it a case that because you disagree with some peoples opinion you want to stop the discussion al together. how narrowminded of you.

For many people, the rights of a child IS an important issue. Maybe not for you but for many of us we beleive that this is something that should wait until the child is old enough to understand what & why it is happening.

I think societies should judge things on a case by case basis.

I have said this before.

Honor killings are always wrong.

Ritual male circumcision is no big deal. It is done as a medical procedure routinely anyway. Yes, on babies. You have the nerve to suggest that Jews change an ancient ritual to satisfy some modern PC issue of the moment? That is really arrogant.

No human rights aren't fanatical. What about the human rights of the parents? What about the human rights of religious and ethnic minorities? You call this abuse. That is your opinion. To much of the civilized world it is either a minor medical procedure, religious custom, or both.

I do not want to stop any discussion. Discuss the crusade to oppress religious minorities and doctors who think this is a good idea MEDICALLY all you want. Doesn't bother me in the least.

To me this is very personal. Non-Jews have NO BUSINESS ordering Jews not to do this under any law.

It would be amusing to see western countries get more aggressive on this issue to oppress Jews and Muslims this way. I would welcome Jews and Muslims getting together again on such an important issue to fight this ridiculous intolerance. It might be just what the doctor ordered.

I think societies should judge things on a case by case basis.

I have said this before.

Honor killings are always wrong.

Ritual male circumcision is no big deal. It is done as a medical procedure routinely anyway. Yes, on babies. You have the nerve to suggest that Jews change an ancient ritual to satisfy some modern PC issue of the moment? That is really arrogant.

No human rights aren't fanatical. What about the human rights of the parents? You call this abuse. That is your opinion. To much of the civilized world it is either a minor medical procedure, religious custom, or both.

I do not want to stop any discussion. Discuss the crusade to oppress religious minorities and doctors who think this is a good idea MEDICALLY all you want. Doesn't bother me in the least.

To me this is very personal. Non-Jews have NO BUSINESS ordering Jews not to do this under any law.

Its hardly a human rights issue for the parents!

As you say its a ritualistic religious practice. There is an issue of the child's human rights here, not the parents.

Children should be protected from abuse by their parents or any other adult. The question is whether this procedure is an abuse of the rights of the parent.

Its a tricky area in my view, being as there are not campaigning groups of circumcised males out there demanding an end to the practice.

A personal choice then, but one which I do feel should be made far later for boys, if it is a religious thing, when they are old enough to make the choice for themselves.

That's my view....others will hold different views but to say if it is going to be done it should happen so young and only for the satisfaction of the parents religious beliefs, to me that is an abuse of the child's right to choose...as clearly they are being deprived of any later decision.

The Jewish custom is a BRIS done in early infancy. Other cultures have customs of later circumcisions but with Jews, it is done in infancy. Don't be messing with minorities, OK?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wibZXIDeNm0

So why is slavery now illegal

As I posted earlier in the thread

No, you can't deny women their basic rights and pretend it's about your religion freedom. If you don't like birth control, don't use it. Religious freedom doesn't mean you can force others to live by your own beliefs.

So lets be more specific....

No, you can't deny children their basic rights and pretend it's about your religion freedom. If you don't like foreskins, don't have one. Religious freedom doesn't mean you can force others to live by your own beliefs.

The whole concept of owning another human being of any age is endorsed by all three monotheistic religions, as is genocide but we have managed to lift ourself above such barbarism. We are able to see that slavery (the ownership of another human) is wrong though within the religion of constantly being offended it still has some way to go. Slavery had been going on for longer than a command to chop off part of your John Thomas so the argument that it has been going on for 1000s of years is meaningless.

If someone wants to believe in an invisable sky daddy then they have that right and no attempt should ever be made to stop that right. If someone wants to believe they are a chicken sandwich then so be it, it would be sad but who is anyone to say they do not have that right? Their belief is exactly that, THEIR belief. Don't expect to be respected for having that belief, don't expect any special treatment for having that belief and don't foister that belief on others. But oh no, that's too much to ask isn't it!

you really must be joking? do you really think that people should only focus on one issue or is it a case that because you disagree with some peoples opinion you want to stop the discussion al together. how narrowminded of you.

Standard M.O. Shut the discussion down. If you can't - play the victim card - either gay or Jewish depending on the circumstances...

As I posted earlier in the thread

No, you can't deny women their basic rights and pretend it's about your religion freedom. If you don't like birth control, don't use it. Religious freedom doesn't mean you can force others to live by your own beliefs.

So lets be more specific....

No, you can't deny children their basic rights and pretend it's about your religion freedom. If you don't like foreskins, don't have one. Religious freedom doesn't mean you can force others to live by your own beliefs.

The whole concept of owning another human being of any age is endorsed by all three monotheistic religions, as is genocide but we have managed to lift ourself above such barbarism. We are able to see that slavery (the ownership of another human) is wrong though within the religion of constantly being offended it still has some way to go. Slavery had been going on for longer than a command to chop off part of your John Thomas so the argument that it has been going on for 1000s of years is meaningless.

If someone wants to believe in an invisable sky daddy then they have that right and no attempt should ever be made to stop that right. If someone wants to believe they are a chicken sandwich then so be it, it would be sad but who is anyone to say they do not have that right? Their belief is exactly that, THEIR belief. Don't expect to be respected for having that belief, don't expect any special treatment for having that belief and don't foister that belief on others. But oh no, that's too much to ask isn't it!

It's a pity that the system only allows you to like a post once...

So why is slavery now illegal

Because it is wrong. Circumcision is a useful medical procedure and is a CHOICE for PARENTS.