Quote:
Absolutely not, and I didn't circumcise my son either.
Originally posted by
Champagne and Benzedrine (Roland Hulme)
As you might have heard, the CDC is considering advocating circumcision for American infants, citing some reports that it can reduce HIV transmission by as much as 50% for men.
Now, you all know my feelings towards circumcision (if not, read ... more
Now, you all know my feelings towards circumcision (if not, read ... more
As you might have heard, the CDC is considering advocating circumcision for American infants, citing some reports that it can reduce HIV transmission by as much as 50% for men.
Now, you all know my feelings towards circumcision (if not, read it here link) But I'll stick to facts, rather than opinion.
I would like to ask a hypothetical question.
According to 'Guidelines for the Management and Post Exposure Prophylaxis of Individuals who Sustain Nonoccupational Exposure to HIV, ANCAHRD/CTARC Bulletin, February 2001' a uncircumcised man has a 1 in 725 chance of being infected with HIV from having unprotected intercourse (with him doing the insertion.) That's each time - obviously it's like playing the lottery every time you have sex.
Based on the CDC assumption that circumcision cuts that risk by 50%, a man has a 1,250 chance of getting infected.
And, finally, assuming that a man's foreskin (containing 50,000 nerve endings) is equivalent to a woman's clitoris (also containing 50,000 nerve endings) I asked the following:
If you knew it would reduce your daughter's chance of HIV infection, should she choose to have unprotected sex with somebody who was possibly infected, from 1 in 750 to 1 in 1,250, would you advocate a 'clitectomy' - removing her clitoris - at birth, like the CDC is advocating boys are circumcised?
Now, don't worry too much about the facts. I'm sure they're debatable and I accept that I might have made a few assumptions. Just concentrate on the question.
If it reduced the risk, would you cut off your infant daughter's clitoris?
I apologise in advance for anybody I offend with this question, but it's something I'm very passionate about and am curious. less
Now, you all know my feelings towards circumcision (if not, read it here link) But I'll stick to facts, rather than opinion.
I would like to ask a hypothetical question.
According to 'Guidelines for the Management and Post Exposure Prophylaxis of Individuals who Sustain Nonoccupational Exposure to HIV, ANCAHRD/CTARC Bulletin, February 2001' a uncircumcised man has a 1 in 725 chance of being infected with HIV from having unprotected intercourse (with him doing the insertion.) That's each time - obviously it's like playing the lottery every time you have sex.
Based on the CDC assumption that circumcision cuts that risk by 50%, a man has a 1,250 chance of getting infected.
And, finally, assuming that a man's foreskin (containing 50,000 nerve endings) is equivalent to a woman's clitoris (also containing 50,000 nerve endings) I asked the following:
If you knew it would reduce your daughter's chance of HIV infection, should she choose to have unprotected sex with somebody who was possibly infected, from 1 in 750 to 1 in 1,250, would you advocate a 'clitectomy' - removing her clitoris - at birth, like the CDC is advocating boys are circumcised?
Now, don't worry too much about the facts. I'm sure they're debatable and I accept that I might have made a few assumptions. Just concentrate on the question.
If it reduced the risk, would you cut off your infant daughter's clitoris?
I apologise in advance for anybody I offend with this question, but it's something I'm very passionate about and am curious. less
