Excellent post, wacki.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He didn't even bother to read the information before he downplayed it based solely on the name of the site on which some of it was hosted.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see the phrase "International Coalition of Genital Integrity" anywhere on any of the three pages to which I linked anyway, but even if it were there, so what?
[/ QUOTE ]
It's odd these two quotes are in the same post.
If you look at the first link you provided:
Backup Linky
and read the very FIRST sentence.
Cape Town - Organisations including the International Coalition of Genital Integrity on Friday cautioned against reports indicating that mass circumcisions could help prevent the spread of HIV.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are correct. I honestly did not notice that there when I looked at those pages as I was responding to your post.
[ QUOTE ]
If you want a real source of information on this topic, here is a good link. It's simple, easy to read, and has a magical thing called bibliography which is linked to
reputable peer reviewed journals.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte.../320/7249/1592
It will tell you HOW circumcisions stop HIV.
[/ QUOTE ]
There are lots of rebuttals that can be found
here. Some even have a magical thing called a bibliography which is linked to
reputable peer reviewed journals.
I'm not looking to be a nit with this study or its rebuttals. The point is that the conclusion of this study is, at best, debatable.
The REAL point is this. The study itself is pointless. There are these really neat things called condoms. People, regardless of their circumcision status, can choose to use them to dramatically reduce their risk of HIV infection.
People will point to this study to support their opinions that male infants should be circumcised, or that circumcision is "right", or whatever, because of the study's implication that circumcision will lower the risk of HIV infection.
Ultimately, however, even if there were studies that conclude that circumcision is 100% effective in preventing HIV infection, this should not be used as a reason to force circumcision upon anyone.
Let me propose an equally ridiculous idea: removing female infants' breasts, at birth, would have a 100% success rate at preventing breast cancer. Obviously, the very idea that something like this should be proposed as a preventative measure is completely absurd. The very idea that circumcision should be proposed as a preventative measure for HIV infection is no less absurd.