I was shocked, surprised, and flabbergasted to hear it. I’m sure that you'll never believe it, either. The federal government is – get this, readers – butting into your most personal and private business.
OK, you’ve caught me in a rare moment of sarcasm. Maybe I wasn't really that surprised. After all, government bureaucrats attempt to control what types of substances you put into your body, what kind of work you do with your body, and even how you can legally dispose of your body after death; it makes perfect sense that they would also scramble for power over what parts of your body should remain attached. Yes, that’s right. The CDC is now considering a campaign for universal circumcision in the US.
Read more...
In Europe, almost no-one circumcises unless they're Muslim or Jewish, and they have significantly lower rates of almost all STI's including HIV.
ReplyDeleteEven in Africa, there are six countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised: Rwanda, Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Cameroon, the HIV rate is 4.1% among circumcised men, but only 1.1% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn't happen. We now have people calling circumcision a "vaccine" or "invisible condom", and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms.
ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery will cost lives, not save them.
I'm always shocked, surprised and flabbergasted to learn how comfortable Americans are with people interfering with the right of the individual to decide for himself how much of his own body he may keep - once he is old enough to decide for himself.
ReplyDeleteThe rest of the English-speaking world used to circumcise babies almost routinely, but they found it did no good and they've virtually given it up.
I'm very glad to hear that the CDC has clarified its policy, circumcision recommendations will be "completely voluntary". That can only mean no more circumcision of newborns, except in cases of pressing medical need.
(At least that's what it SHOULD mean. How can it be "completely voluntary" if the person most directly involved, the person on the other end, the only person who is going to get to use the thing, is not consulted?)