That kind of argument is unworthy - we are not choosing among mutually exclusive approaches to combating AIDS. You don't usually post like that.
Citing male circumcision as a means to stop the spread of AIDS or reduce its spread is dangerous rhetoric. We all know that the best way to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS and other STD's is to practice safe sex or abstinence. It has proven itself to be the most effective means of curbing the spread.
Perpetuating the belief that removing the foreskin somehow offers protection is false advertising and induces a sense of complacency which can lead to more risky behaviour.
It's not pathetic, it's bizarrely inflamed by overheated rhetoric. Removing arms and legs? Mastectomy and FGM? Please.
Those comments come from people who see the foreskin as being the part of a person that should not be removed.
It never ceases to amaze me how some do not view the male penis and all of its parts as being somehow as important as say, a woman's breast or clitorus. And that comes, in part, from the fact that some religions practice circumcision and have done so for many years. Therefore, it has become somewhat acceptable to take a newborn baby boy and remove his foreskin - usually without any form of pain relief (when performed as a religious ceremony at least) and even when performed by a doctor, they will rarely put the child to sleep to do it. In the West, the most common form of circumcision for non-religious purposes involves placing a tight clamp around the head of the penis, which then kills the foreskin - in that the skin dies and falls off. Other forms that are used is to burn it off. And there are many documented and well known cases where it goes wrong and the child either ends up with a damaged penis requiring extensive surgery afterwards, which leads to untold psychological damage, but there is also the chance of death to the child.
To me, the mere thought of doing that to a child for any reason that is not medical necessity (in which case, it is done in a hospital and the foreskin is surgically removed while the child is under the effect is anesthesia) is horrific to me. Why would you put a child through that much pain, placing the child at risk of possible death or deformed penis, for religious reasons or for cosmetic reasons? Because lets face it, many men in the US choose to circumcise their sons because they want their son's penis to look just like Daddy's.
And yet, people rile at the thought that a woman might circumcise her daughter because she was also circumcised. They don't view it as being the same. That to me is sexist.
The argument for circumcision is sexist. Just as the argument for female circumcision is sexist.
Actually, if we are considering events that rare, all circumcisions are not "elective" in the sense of reasonably avoidable. There are some uncommon but more-common-than-that medical situations in which neo-natal circumcision is part of the indicated treatment of a birth defect or other serious medical problem. Failure to screen for that (fatal complications being much more likely in such situations) or consider the comparative longer term death and complication rates, along with the deceptive reference to car accidents within 28 days of birth as social concerns and some other hints in the abstract's rhetoric, lead me to question the clearly subtle and difficult statistical interpretations of the study authors.
I am not talking about medical problems or birth defects. The study looked at elective circumcisions in the US. And the rate of death is actually higher from that than Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. And when you consider that it was completely and utterly preventable, it is appalling.
You may question their interpretation, but the numbers speak for themselves.
But regardless, the circumstances of circumcision in a Western country - where we do have soap and clean water, the medical tech for safe adult circumcision, anesthesia, pediatric expertise for treatment of rare cancers or yeast and other infections in children, and other things that make the consequences of delaying such decisions less of a factor - mean that child circumcision should be a carefully made decision by informed and warned parents, and not be automatic or pressured.
It should not be pressured or be deemed automatic.
However in many countries, it is all too common because it is pressured or automatic. And a lot of the time, it is all for cosmetic reasons or because the parents believe it looks better or is cleaner, which it actually is not. An uncircumcised boy's penis requires no extra cleaning or special care. What is required when they become adults is that they pull the foreskin back when they wash themselves and clean it with water when they shower. Just like you'd teach your kids to wash their armpits and between their buttcheeks.
In Australia, there was a bit of a push to educate parents or prospective parents on circumcision so that people could make an informed decision. And the rate of circumcision has dropped quite considerably and one major hospital in the State that I live in has actually banned all non-essential circumcision of baby boys. By non-essential, I mean non-medical circumcisions, cases where there is an abnormality or deformity, it is of course performed without question. When I had my son, I wasn't even asked if I wanted him to be circumcised. In my experience, it is more a case of it is not expected.. In fact, it is considered out of the norm to make such a request for a newborn. And that is because parents are educated about it - especially in situations where it is solely cosmetic or psychological for the parents.
Which would mean, in the US, not profitable for anyone, either way.
I don't think it is.
Leave boys intact and allow them to make that decision for themselves when they are older.
