Now i understand for religious reasons or even for personal choices not doing it for your kid but for all these people to be soo upset about the cdc just suggesting a healthier choice is downright silly. It’s ultimately your choice for your baby but PEOPLE SHOULD STILL BE POINTED IN THE HEALTHY DIRECTION.

What about the claim that is reduces the chance of developing penile cancer? The truth is that it is an extremely rare cancer limited to older men, and both intact and cut males remain at risk for this 1-in-100,000 disease. Perhaps the CDC will next recommend surgery on baby girls to provide 100% protection against breast cancer. And so what if circumcision lowers risk of UTI’s a bit? Wouldn’t an antibiotic like the ladies use be a better choice than elective surgery?

This latest claim of reducing the risk of HIV is just more of the same distortion of the facts.
The claim that is it cuts the risk in half might be true. But if you will simply read the studies, you will learn that over a typical 2 year period, the actual claims are that 1% of the circumcised men group contracted HIV, compared to 2% of those that had remained intact. Do you know anyone who would choose to have surgery on their genitals for prevention if it only lowered their risk 1%, particularly when everyone knows that a condom is really the only way to have protected sex?

The USA is the only developed country that still routinely circumcises baby boys for non-religious reasons. The history of the practice in our county traces back to the late 1890’s, when doctors believed that masturbation caused illness, and they knew that a denuded penis reduced the pleasure. Since then, this mutilation of males has continued to look for justification. Societies that circumcised females use the same justifications, stating the females are cleaner, more attractive, and less prone to disease. Our nation sees these atrocities for what they are, and outlawed the practice in 1996. But still, we cut away 20,000 nerve endings and 30-50% of the most sensitive skin on a baby boy, and say stupid things like “It looks better” or “he should look like his dad”. One day, the men of this nation are going to learn the truth about what was taken from then and rise up to demand that all children have the right to decide if they what their genitals cut, not their well intentioned, but terribly misguided parents.

“The science is IN !!!!

NO more highly emotive and alarmist crap from the anticircs

Millions of people (men and women) will now avoid contracting a wide range of sexually transmitted diseases

Policies must be formulated urgently”

Excuse me? I hope you’re not being serious.

1: Junk science. The African studies have flaws in the methodology. The circumcised group was told to abstain while waiting for their wounds to heal and instructed in condom usage. The uncircumcised group had no such restrictions or counseling. That is a terribly one-sided way to conduct any “scientific” study. How could anyone expect accurate and non-biased results from THAT? Conveniently, (in an odd and suspicious kind of way) another study further down aimed at the pro-circ literature turned out to have unfavorable results where the circumcised were having higher infection rates, and so they canceled it early dismissing the findings as “flawed”. Bias, bias, bias… It’s showing quite well.

2: Hopefully we won’t be having anymore thoughtless and fraudulent BS from you pro-circs either. When you restrain an infant and rip off a part of his body without his consent based on mere speculation at his future behaviors or partners, you can bet money it’s going to get highly emotional and personal. Especially from those circumcised in infancy who turned out to resent their ill-advised parents decision. I am one such man. It’s only reasonable to be held to account for this kind of thing.

3: No, they will not. The only thing that is going to happen is the same thing as it has always been thus far. Nothing changes for the better. A circumcised penis is still flesh, it’s still susceptible to infections of any kind regardless of it’s physical state. Circumcision doesn’t have any bearing on risky behavior as well which is the primary risk factor for all STD’s, so a circumcised man can still get infected much the same way as any uncircumcised one can. You seem to be forgetting that the US is already largely circ’d and yet they somehow have higher rates of STD’s by comparison to other developed nations where the circ rates are lower, despite your miracle studies attempting to find something positive out of it. That’s a negative correlation to circ right out there in the open if you care to look for it. Nevermind the fact that Africans have a different circumstance and culture from the Americas… Can you really apply those studies to the US given consideration of that? I don’t think so, I’m sure many others do too.

4: And you can rest assured that we will be beside and never stop fighting those policies every step and inch of the way. They aren’t logically going to change anything for the better anytime soon, (and even when that happens I doubt it will be from circ) so what’s the rush here?

In much if not in most of Europe it is practically illegal to circumcise baby boys, with an exception for Muslims and Jews to do religious circumcisions. In Canada the main medical organizations recommend against circumcising baby boys. So in my opinion if anything the CDC should be recommending against circumcising baby boys.

At the circumstitions/HIV website it lists 20 studies that show circumcisions do not reduce the likelihood of males getting HIV, 4 of those studies show that circumcisions increase the likelihood of males getting HIV. Also at that site it shows that in at least 7 African countries circumcised males have higher AIDS rates than uncircumcised males. A couple years ago the CDC did a study in the U.S. which showed that U.S. men are just as likely to become infected with HIV whether they are circumcised or not. So there are a lot of strong conflicting evidences on whether or not circumcisions reduce the risk of males getting HIV.

Keep thinking. There are already studies that say that FGM reduces the risk of HIV. But we would NEVER allow the CDC to even consider this as any kind of tool against HIV.Furthermore. Newborns aren’t having sex. The decision should be HIS to decide when he is a mature adult. HIS body, HIS choice.

Adam, scaring people with HIV to circumcise their sons IS “alarmist crap.” We’re not the special interest group, pro-circs are. They are interested in “universal circumcision” and could give an actual carp about HIV reduction.

No, circumcision does not prevent anything. Circumcised men get every STD including AIDs, just like intact men do. It’s no excuse to circumcise a newborn, who doesn’t even have sex yet.

Let’s talk about the science:

The CDC is basing its consideration on completely flawed “studies.” Circumcised men were told to abstain from sex for 6 weeks following their operation and were instructed in the use of condoms. Look at the study abstract for more details. Furthermore, the “studies” were ended early, while the numbers were “solid.” Not to mention information from other countries where circumcised men with HIV far outnumbered intact men with HIV were deliberately omitted. One needs to question the validity of “studies” that seek to find a problem for a solution, and not a solution to a problem.

Hardly scientific at all.

The best “policy” is to let concenting adults make their OWN choices, not “recommend” the deliberate mutilation and violation of human rights of non-consenting individuals.

NO more highly emotive and alarmist crap from the anticircs

Millions of people (men and women) will now avoid contracting a wide range of sexually transmitted diseases

Policies must be formulated urgently

Sure, the procedure may be offered to adults. But how could anyone ever ethically justify remove a healthy, functioning structure from an infant? Assuming that he will engage in unsafe sex later, and wishing to *possibly* provide a *partial* reduction of risk of a disease, a disease preventable by other means, years and years down the road?

The HIV/AIDS fight has many promising battles ahead, but implementing permanent alteration of the bodies of infants is not a victory.