You like quoting WHO don’t you raj?
‘There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%’
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You like quoting WHO don’t you raj?
‘There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%’
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/[/quote]
And maybe in a place where HIV/AIDS is ubiquitous and the situation is so dire, circumcision could be more beneficial than harmful.
But that’s not the case in industrialized nations. For instance only about 0.03% of Canadians live with HIV/AIDS and I think it’s even less in Australia. For the most part HIV/AIDS cases are limited to certain groups - homosexual men, prostitutes and IV drug users so most of the general population isn’t at risk.
So tell me, do you think circumcision is justifiable in western countries based on the criteria that it reduces the chances of contracting HIV?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I thought you were concerned about people’s health and that’s why you want circumcision outlawed raj?[/quote]
I don’t think it should be outlawed, I’m just hoping it goes away on it’s own.
Obviously a lot of people do it for religious reasons, but I think a lot of people would not have their child circumcised if they knew the facts.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So tell me, do you think circumcision is justifiable in western countries based on the criteria that it reduces the chances of contracting HIV?[/quote]
Firstly, circumcision carries such a low level of risk that it doesn’t need justifying. And secondly, as you concede it may be an effective method of controlling HIV rates in the third world.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Firstly, circumcision carries such a low level of risk that it doesn’t need justifying. [/quote]
It doesn’t? So any practise that has a low level of risk can be carried out on a newborn without justification? Is that what you’re saying?
You may want to think that one through.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
And secondly, as you concede it may be an effective method of controlling HIV rates in the third world.[/quote]
In Africa, sure.
Your username is SexMachine, so I’ll assume you place a lot of value in sexual pleasure. Correct?
the foreskin “is rich in specialized sensory nerve endings and erogenous tissue.”
[quote]maverick88 wrote:
What does the frequently cited 60% relative reduction in HIV infections actually mean? Across all three female-to-male trials, of the 5,411 men subjected to male circumcision, 64 (1.18%) became HIV-positive. Among the 5,497 controls, 137 (2.49%) became HIV-positive, so the absolute decrease in HIV infection was only 1.31%.
Take into account the fact that those who had the surgery most likely got educated on safer sex practices, and the use of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use, would there be a difference?
Also, in Zimbabwe the ministry of health is deceiving people by announcing to them that once they are circumcised, they become immune to HIV/AIDS effectively encouraging them to engage in promiscuity. Instead of reducing the risk, circumcision has been tested through behaviour change to actually be a protagonist of HIV transmission, critics state. One recent randomized controlled trial carried out in South Africa into male-to-female transmission actually demonstrated a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised.[/quote]
Sex Machine why did you ignore this?
They let Bayless become an UFA. Interesting
Oops wrong thread
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Your username is SexMachine, so I’ll assume you place a lot of value in sexual pleasure. Correct?
[/quote]
SexMachine is a character from the movie ‘From Dusk Till Dawn.’
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]maverick88 wrote:
What does the frequently cited 60% relative reduction in HIV infections actually mean? Across all three female-to-male trials, of the 5,411 men subjected to male circumcision, 64 (1.18%) became HIV-positive. Among the 5,497 controls, 137 (2.49%) became HIV-positive, so the absolute decrease in HIV infection was only 1.31%.
Take into account the fact that those who had the surgery most likely got educated on safer sex practices, and the use of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use, would there be a difference?
Also, in Zimbabwe the ministry of health is deceiving people by announcing to them that once they are circumcised, they become immune to HIV/AIDS effectively encouraging them to engage in promiscuity. Instead of reducing the risk, circumcision has been tested through behaviour change to actually be a protagonist of HIV transmission, critics state. One recent randomized controlled trial carried out in South Africa into male-to-female transmission actually demonstrated a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised.[/quote]
Sex Machine why did you ignore this?[/quote]
There’s no source listed there for the stats or the text so I have no way of checking those claims. The World Health Organisation and UNAIDS “recommend that male circumcision be included in the HIV prevention package of 13 East and Southern African countries with high HIV prevalence.”
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]maverick88 wrote:
What does the frequently cited 60% relative reduction in HIV infections actually mean? Across all three female-to-male trials, of the 5,411 men subjected to male circumcision, 64 (1.18%) became HIV-positive. Among the 5,497 controls, 137 (2.49%) became HIV-positive, so the absolute decrease in HIV infection was only 1.31%.
Take into account the fact that those who had the surgery most likely got educated on safer sex practices, and the use of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use, would there be a difference?
Also, in Zimbabwe the ministry of health is deceiving people by announcing to them that once they are circumcised, they become immune to HIV/AIDS effectively encouraging them to engage in promiscuity. Instead of reducing the risk, circumcision has been tested through behaviour change to actually be a protagonist of HIV transmission, critics state. One recent randomized controlled trial carried out in South Africa into male-to-female transmission actually demonstrated a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised.[/quote]
Sex Machine why did you ignore this?[/quote]
There’s no source listed there for the stats or the text so I have no way of checking those claims. The World Health Organisation and UNAIDS “recommend that male circumcision be included in the HIV prevention package of 13 East and Southern African countries with high HIV prevalence.”[/quote]
http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf
Contrary to recent popular claims that male circumcision reduces HIV/Aids transmission by 60 per cent, a group of researchers has disputed the findings, saying the action will only increase the spread of HIV/Aids and can only reduce its transmission by 1.3 per cent at most.
Researchers Gregory Boyle and George Hill in a study published by Australiaâ??s Thomson Reuters, base their argument on a recent male-to-female transmission of HIV study in Uganda, which showed that more women contracted the virus after unprotected intercourse to infected circumcised male partners.
They concluded that male circumcision is associated with a 61-per-cent increase in HIV transmission.
[quote]maverick88 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]maverick88 wrote:
What does the frequently cited 60% relative reduction in HIV infections actually mean? Across all three female-to-male trials, of the 5,411 men subjected to male circumcision, 64 (1.18%) became HIV-positive. Among the 5,497 controls, 137 (2.49%) became HIV-positive, so the absolute decrease in HIV infection was only 1.31%.
Take into account the fact that those who had the surgery most likely got educated on safer sex practices, and the use of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use, would there be a difference?
Also, in Zimbabwe the ministry of health is deceiving people by announcing to them that once they are circumcised, they become immune to HIV/AIDS effectively encouraging them to engage in promiscuity. Instead of reducing the risk, circumcision has been tested through behaviour change to actually be a protagonist of HIV transmission, critics state. One recent randomized controlled trial carried out in South Africa into male-to-female transmission actually demonstrated a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised.[/quote]
Sex Machine why did you ignore this?[/quote]
There’s no source listed there for the stats or the text so I have no way of checking those claims. The World Health Organisation and UNAIDS “recommend that male circumcision be included in the HIV prevention package of 13 East and Southern African countries with high HIV prevalence.”[/quote]
http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf
Contrary to recent popular claims that male circumcision reduces HIV/Aids transmission by 60 per cent, a group of researchers has disputed the findings, saying the action will only increase the spread of HIV/Aids and can only reduce its transmission by 1.3 per cent at most.
Researchers Gregory Boyle and George Hill in a study published by Australiaâ??s Thomson Reuters, base their argument on a recent male-to-female transmission of HIV study in Uganda, which showed that more women contracted the virus after unprotected intercourse to infected circumcised male partners.
They concluded that male circumcision is associated with a 61-per-cent increase in HIV transmission.
[/quote]
Thanks.
‘I am surprised that Boyle and Hill have chosen to ignore the pool of evidence…one can imagine how damaging Boyle and Hills (2011) paper “Sub-Saharan randomised clinical trials into male circumcision and HIV transmission: methodological, ethical and legal concerns”, can be in a region where people are getting infected with HIV and do not even have knowledge of what to eat, are battling with malaria and institutional failures. There is no time to disclaim such research findings. These guys’ proclamations are going to hurt Africa real bad.
I believe they are more concerned, not about the methodological issues in randomised trials for male circumcision, but the ethical and legal parameters to be followed when carrying out circumcision.’
[quote]therajraj wrote:
It doesn’t? So any practise that has a low level of risk can be carried out on a newborn without justification? Is that what you’re saying?
[/quote]
Depends how low. There’s a minor risk in getting your ears pierced. So I’m saying it doesn’t have to be justified to the state. The state isn’t supposed to raise kids. That’s what parents do.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Pretty sure there are a couple other religions that agree with my above point. Is damning someone to an eternity of suffering not comparable to what you all are claiming people who cut their kids do?[/quote]
And how is that relevant? [/quote]
And suddenly, almost out of no where, so many of Cortes’ posts to you make so much more sense…
[/quote]
Haha!! Seriously lol. I wish I had more time to post this week.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
My take on this topic :
if it has no health benefit, it should not be considered a medical act.
Which doesn’t mean it should be banned.
Only that regular laws about elective surgery should apply. Whatever they may be.
In other words : if you want to strenghten your laws about elective surgery done on children (to avoid some issues with divorced parents, or to clarify the condition of parental consent, for example), then go for it, and change them all at once, but i don’t think it’s a good idea to make a special case and specific laws about circumcision.
That said, a question for the people who think that circumcision shouldn’t be banned because it’s a tradition : where do you draw the line, and why ?
Let’s say i’m an australian aboriginal who want to subject his son to the millenia old tradition of penile subincision.*
Is it ok or not ?
*if you don’t know what it is, use google image at your own risk. You’ve been warned. [/quote]
Why?
Oh why?[/quote]
X200000000000000000000000000000000
the idea that circumcision reduces HIV risk sounded absurd in the first place.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
My take on this topic :
if it has no health benefit, it should not be considered a medical act.
Which doesn’t mean it should be banned.
Only that regular laws about elective surgery should apply. Whatever they may be.
In other words : if you want to strenghten your laws about elective surgery done on children (to avoid some issues with divorced parents, or to clarify the condition of parental consent, for example), then go for it, and change them all at once, but i don’t think it’s a good idea to make a special case and specific laws about circumcision.
That said, a question for the people who think that circumcision shouldn’t be banned because it’s a tradition : where do you draw the line, and why ?
Let’s say i’m an australian aboriginal who want to subject his son to the millenia old tradition of penile subincision.*
Is it ok or not ?
*if you don’t know what it is, use google image at your own risk. You’ve been warned. [/quote]
Why?
Oh why?[/quote]
X200000000000000000000000000000000[/quote]
Unfortunately, I can’t say that’s anything close to the worst thing I’ve seen on the internet.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
*if you don’t know what it is, use google image at your own risk. You’ve been warned. [/quote]
[quote]orion wrote:
Why?
Oh why?[/quote]
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
We humans are a sorry lot indeed.
[/quote]
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
Why did I have be stupid and google that? I will never be the same.
[/quote]
Okay, either I’ve spent too much time on the internet or you guys need to spend more time on the internet.
That is pretty tame compared to the twisted shit some people do and film doing.
Protip: google and watch “glass ass”[/quote]
I’ve seen all that stuff, including the BME Pain Olympics (which may or may not be real, but if fake, is the most convincing fake I’ve ever seen).
I can handle any of it, but there is a particularly gruesome empathy aroused by the violent mutilation of genitalia on film. I’d feel about the same watching someone have needles pushed under his fingernails.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
the idea that circumcision reduces HIV risk sounded absurd in the first place.[/quote]
Yes, there is a way to get rid of HIV in 1 generation, and circumcision is not it. However, statistically it helps reduce it.