Aids HIV FAQ

Sex is more pleasurable for unmutilated men and women

Question:

> Item 2 has been front page news– > 1. The Jews have been around for thousands and thousands of years, and > circumcision is part of their culture.

Culture and history are not an excuse for assault and mutilation on innocent minors. They are an extremely bright and > enterprising people–0.2 % of the world population, and represent about 23% > (circumcised!) Nobel Prize winners.  But their contributions span virtually > every field, from literature to medicine to art…one could go on.  They are > noted for having relatively stable families and an extremely low incidence > of both criminal behavior as well as addictions.

Correlation does not imply causation.  i.e. just because they have good does traits not mean that they do not have evil traits. > 2. Those involved in AIDs prevention in Africa are extremely excited by > South Africa’s study that circumcised men have a much, much lower > transmission of HIV than uncircumcised men–up to ***70%!!*** lower rates of > infecting women.   Very promising for a simple way of reducing the rampant > spread of AIDs in Africa–the article is below.

Even if circumcision protects against disease, that is a prophylactic decision that one should make as an adult.  It does not give anyone, parents, or doctors a right to circumcise a child without his or her consent.  Some people are monogamous and do not have to worry about the risk of disease.  We all have a right to make our own decisions in life, considering the costs and benefits of them all, and those who are circumcised in childhood are deprived of that right. All you can do as a health professional is inform people of the costs and benefits of certain prophylactic decisions. Even if circumcision protects against HIV contraction, it should be illegal to circumcise anyone under the age of 18 or 21.  Circumcision is a choice that should be made by oneself, as an ADULT.  For even with the hypothetical benefit of less HIV contraction, there is still the cost (to some, if not others) of being circumcised, not monetary cost, but the cost of being circumcised, as some men would not want to be circumcised, weighed against the benefit of this supposed less HIV contraction. If cutting off your arm made it less likely to get a serious illness, it would not always be reasonable to cut off one’s arm, if there was a possibility of living a wholesome life WITH one’s arm intact, EVEN THOUGH, you would be at a greater risk of disease. For even some might know that they would not be at risk for the disease in their isolated (or monogamous) lifestyle. And, some might rather die than go through life without an arm.  People have individual preferences. As far as the argument, that circumcising people makes everyone in society as a whole safer, an easy response anyone who perpetrates this idea is for women to a) not have sex with uncircumcised men, who according to some may supposedly have been at a greater risk of contracting HIV, or b) have their partner tested. Forcing circumcision is certainly unnecessary.  It should be illegal to circumcise anyone under the age of 18 or 21. Body modification against unwilling recipients is mayhem.  People under age 18 do not have the ability to consent to such extra-ordinary body modification.  So while adults might generally be free to modify their own bodies as they please, it is illegal mayhem to modify the bodies of unconsenting individuals such as minors, a crime which carries a penalty of up to life in prison in some states.  Certainly some cases such as birth deformities, accidents, and medically necessary surgery are exempt.  The only question is when is a birth deformity bad enough to require extensive body  modification.  Some person could be born with a truly abnormally big nose which could be considered a deformity. Another person might just want a nose which was more aesthetically pleasing.  It is possible this could be a passing whim…… we’ve seen what multiple nose jobs have done to Michael Jackson.  While irreversible body modifications such as tongue splitting and circumcision should be illegal on minors under the age of 18, reversible body modification such as piercings can probably be exempt. But tattoos should probably be illegal…. It may still be somewhat of an unanswered issue.  While teenagers can give more consent than a baby, they are still minors making decisions which can affect the whole of their lives, and worse they may be pressured by their parents to undergo unnecessary body modification. While on the one hand some teenagers might want plastic surgery to improve their lives in school which can set the course of their lives, on the other side of the issue, we may see what too many nose jobs has done to Michael Jackson.  In the case of circumcision there is no reason why a teenager cannot wait until they are over 18, or even 21 to decide to have this irreversible procedure performed.  And it is absolutely immoral and wrong to perform it on an unwilling baby who has no say in the matter. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Another relevant link: > (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2004/11/16/c… >  ) > ABC News > Study: Male Circumcision Lowers AIDS Risk > French Researchers Find Male Circumcision Reduces Female-To-Male > Transmission of the AIDS Virus > By MICHAEL ASTOR Associated Press Writer > The Associated Press > RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil Jul 26, 2005 – Male circumcision significantly > reduces the chances of female-to-male transmission of the AIDS virus, > according to a new study French researchers announced Tuesday. > The study, conducted in South Africa, found that circumcision reduced the > risk of men contracting AIDS during heterosexual intercourse by about 65 > percent. > "There had always been a suspicion that male circumcision prevented AIDS . > but this is the first randomized study using control trials," said Dr. > Bertrand Auvert, who coordinated the study for France’s National AIDS > Research Agency. > Auvert announced the finding at the Third International AIDS Society > Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment in Rio de Janeiro which ends > Wednesday. > The study was conducted between 2002 and 2005 with more than 3,000 healthy, > sexually active males between 18 and 24 in Orange Farm, South Africa, where > about 32 percent of the female population was HIV positive. > For the study, about half of the subjects were circumcised by medical > professionals, and the rest remained uncircumcised. > All of the men received counseling on AIDS prevention. But after 21 months, > 51 members of the uncircumcised group had contracted HIV, the AIDS virus, > while only 18 members of the circumcised group had gotten the disease. > Circumcision "prevented six to seven out of 10 potential HIV infections," > said Auvert. > He said the study did not analyze the effect of circumcision on > male-to-female transmission or if circumcision provides effective protection > over the long term. At least three more studies are under way to confirm the > effectiveness of circumcision. > But scientists said the study was cause for guarded optimism. > "While these results are very promising, we need to put them in a broader > context to see the full benefits of circumcision. So we need to look at > results from other studies," said Dr. Charles Gilks, director-coordinator of > treatment and prevention for the World Health Organization. > A study funded by the U.S. National Health Institute involving 5,000 > individuals is currently under way in Uganda. Scientists expect to announce > the results only in early 2007. > It should be illegal to circumcise anyone under the age of 18 or 21. > Body modification against unwilling recipients is mayhem.  People under > age 18 do not have the ability to consent to such extra-ordinary body > modification.  So while adults might generally be free to modify their > own bodies as they please, it is wrong illegal mayhem to modify the > bodies of unconsenting individuals such as minors, a crime which > carries a penalty of up to life in prison in some places.  Certainly > some cases such as birth deformities, accidents, and medically > necessary surgery are exempt.  The only question is when is a birth > deformity bad enough to require extensive body  modification.  Some > person could be born with a truly abnormally big nose which could be > considered a deformity.  Another person might just want a nose which > was more aesthetically pleasing.  It is possible this could be a > passing whim…… we’ve seen what multiple nose jobs have done to > Michael Jackson.  While irreversible body modifications such as tongue > splitting and circumcision should be illegal on minors under the age of > 18, reversible body modification such as piercings can probably be > exempt.  But tattoos should probably be illegal…. > It may still be somewhat of an unanswered issue.  While teenagers can > give more consent than a baby, they are still minors making decisions > which can affect the whole of their lives, and worse they may be > pressured by their parents to undergo unnecessary body modification. > While on the one hand some teenagers might want plastic surgery to > improve their lives in school which can set the course of their lives, > on the other side of the issue, we may see what too many nose jobs has > done to Michael Jackson.  In the case of circumcision there is no > reason why a teenager cannot wait until they are over 18, or even 21 to > decide to have this irreversible procedure performed.  And it is > absolutely immoral and wrong to perform it on an unwilling baby who has

… read more »

Response:

Item 2 has been front page news– 1. The Jews have been around for thousands and thousands of years, and circumcision is part of their culture.  They are an extremely bright and enterprising people–0.2 % of the world population, and represent about 23% (circumcised!) Nobel Prize winners.  But their contributions span virtually every field, from literature to medicine to art…one could go on.  They are noted for having relatively stable families and an extremely low incidence of both criminal behavior as well as addictions. 2. Those involved in AIDs prevention in Africa are extremely excited by South Africa’s study that circumcised men have a much, much lower transmission of HIV than uncircumcised men–up to ***70%!!*** lower rates of infecting women.   Very promising for a simple way of reducing the rampant spread of AIDs in Africa–the article is below. Another relevant link: (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2004/11/16/c…  ) ABC News Study: Male Circumcision Lowers AIDS Risk French Researchers Find Male Circumcision Reduces Female-To-Male Transmission of the AIDS Virus By MICHAEL ASTOR Associated Press Writer The Associated Press RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil Jul 26, 2005 – Male circumcision significantly reduces the chances of female-to-male transmission of the AIDS virus, according to a new study French researchers announced Tuesday. The study, conducted in South Africa, found that circumcision reduced the risk of men contracting AIDS during heterosexual intercourse by about 65 percent. "There had always been a suspicion that male circumcision prevented AIDS . but this is the first randomized study using control trials," said Dr. Bertrand Auvert, who coordinated the study for France’s National AIDS Research Agency. Auvert announced the finding at the Third International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment in Rio de Janeiro which ends Wednesday. The study was conducted between 2002 and 2005 with more than 3,000 healthy, sexually active males between 18 and 24 in Orange Farm, South Africa, where about 32 percent of the female population was HIV positive. For the study, about half of the subjects were circumcised by medical professionals, and the rest remained uncircumcised. All of the men received counseling on AIDS prevention. But after 21 months, 51 members of the uncircumcised group had contracted HIV, the AIDS virus, while only 18 members of the circumcised group had gotten the disease. Circumcision "prevented six to seven out of 10 potential HIV infections," said Auvert. He said the study did not analyze the effect of circumcision on male-to-female transmission or if circumcision provides effective protection over the long term. At least three more studies are under way to confirm the effectiveness of circumcision. But scientists said the study was cause for guarded optimism. "While these results are very promising, we need to put them in a broader context to see the full benefits of circumcision. So we need to look at results from other studies," said Dr. Charles Gilks, director-coordinator of treatment and prevention for the World Health Organization. A study funded by the U.S. National Health Institute involving 5,000 individuals is currently under way in Uganda. Scientists expect to announce the results only in early 2007.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> It should be illegal to circumcise anyone under the age of 18 or 21. > Body modification against unwilling recipients is mayhem.  People under > age 18 do not have the ability to consent to such extra-ordinary body > modification.  So while adults might generally be free to modify their > own bodies as they please, it is wrong illegal mayhem to modify the > bodies of unconsenting individuals such as minors, a crime which > carries a penalty of up to life in prison in some places.  Certainly > some cases such as birth deformities, accidents, and medically > necessary surgery are exempt.  The only question is when is a birth > deformity bad enough to require extensive body  modification.  Some > person could be born with a truly abnormally big nose which could be > considered a deformity.  Another person might just want a nose which > was more aesthetically pleasing.  It is possible this could be a > passing whim…… we’ve seen what multiple nose jobs have done to > Michael Jackson.  While irreversible body modifications such as tongue > splitting and circumcision should be illegal on minors under the age of > 18, reversible body modification such as piercings can probably be > exempt.  But tattoos should probably be illegal…. > It may still be somewhat of an unanswered issue.  While teenagers can > give more consent than a baby, they are still minors making decisions > which can affect the whole of their lives, and worse they may be > pressured by their parents to undergo unnecessary body modification. > While on the one hand some teenagers might want plastic surgery to > improve their lives in school which can set the course of their lives, > on the other side of the issue, we may see what too many nose jobs has > done to Michael Jackson.  In the case of circumcision there is no > reason why a teenager cannot wait until they are over 18, or even 21 to > decide to have this irreversible procedure performed.  And it is > absolutely immoral and wrong to perform it on an unwilling baby who has > no say in the matter.

Response:

"It should be illegal to circumcise anyone under the age of 18 or 21" it should be !! ….. who says that ??!!

Response:

It should be illegal to circumcise anyone under the age of 18 or 21. Body modification against unwilling recipients is mayhem.  People under age 18 do not have the ability to consent to such extra-ordinary body modification.  So while adults might generally be free to modify their own bodies as they please, it is wrong illegal mayhem to modify the bodies of unconsenting individuals such as minors, a crime which carries a penalty of up to life in prison in some places.  Certainly some cases such as birth deformities, accidents, and medically necessary surgery are exempt.  The only question is when is a birth deformity bad enough to require extensive body  modification.  Some person could be born with a truly abnormally big nose which could be considered a deformity.  Another person might just want a nose which was more aesthetically pleasing.  It is possible this could be a passing whim…… we’ve seen what multiple nose jobs have done to Michael Jackson.  While irreversible body modifications such as tongue splitting and circumcision should be illegal on minors under the age of 18, reversible body modification such as piercings can probably be exempt.  But tattoos should probably be illegal…. It may still be somewhat of an unanswered issue.  While teenagers can give more consent than a baby, they are still minors making decisions which can affect the whole of their lives, and worse they may be pressured by their parents to undergo unnecessary body modification. While on the one hand some teenagers might want plastic surgery to improve their lives in school which can set the course of their lives, on the other side of the issue, we may see what too many nose jobs has done to Michael Jackson.  In the case of circumcision there is no reason why a teenager cannot wait until they are over 18, or even 21 to decide to have this irreversible procedure performed.  And it is absolutely immoral and wrong to perform it on an unwilling baby who has no say in the matter.

Response:

Filed under: HIV