Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Would "Universal Circumcision" fight the spread of AIDS?

I honestly do not get the anti-circumcision crowd who fights to end the practice altogether. It is an ancient part of the Jewish and Muslim religions, and a practice that most doctors believe is essentially harmless to babies. But I also have to wonder when doctors begin proposing to make circumcision universal. Their reason? To combat the spread of AIDS.

The move comes after officials analyzed the results of several studies that show in African countries hit hard by HIV, men who were circumcised reduced their infection risk by half, the New York Times reported. However, those studies focused on heterosexual men who are at risk of getting HIV from infected female partners. The main issue in the U.S. is men who have sex with men.
Of course, the best preventative measure for HIV is to have intercourse only in marriage, and to marry someone who has been previously tested and found to be HIV-free. But I guess that recommendation would be too radical for medical professionals and politicians.


Sean said...

It's not that monogamy is too radical - in fact it is being taught throughout sub-Saharan Africa. It's just that the culture doesn't accept it. Men regularly are unfaithful in that region and unfortunately it is their wives and children that end up taking the brunt of that action. This is just one of several things being pushed to help slow the spread of AIDS in that region. I don't think we should condemn anything that actually helps in this effort.

Nomad said...

It is not the African side I question. It is the idea of passing such a law in the USA.

shadowmom1 said...

Sorry, it is the MANDATORY circumcision that is an affront. If you can't tell a woman she has to have that baby (because she is in control of her own body), you cannot tell a man that he has to submit HIS body for this.