Mothering Forum banner

The CDC is going to recommend circumcision in the US

4K views 88 replies 52 participants last post by  Electra375 
#1 ·
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/fac...rcumcision.pdf

Quote:
CDC HIV/AIDS Science Facts:
Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission: Implications for the United States
December 2006

Quote:
Male circumcision may also have a role for the prevention of HIV transmission in the United States. With the results of three clinical trials showing that male circumcision decreases the risk for HIV infection, CDC is undertaking additional research and consultation to evaluate the potential value, risks, and feasibility of circumcision as an HIV prevention intervention in the U.S
 
See less See more
1
#27 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by BetsyNY View Post
I don't see what any of this has to do with RIC. If some grown man wants to cut off part of his penis rather than wear a condom, that's his choice. Eliminating risky behavior is what stops the spread of HIV, nothing else. Circumcised men still get AIDS! And the situation in Africa just can't be compared to the situation in the U.S., so until these studies are replicated here, I don't think it applies.
What it has to do with RIC is that it's "cheaper" to circ babies. That's the scary rationalization you're going to be seeing for RIC in Africa, and probably in the US, as well, eventually.
 
#28 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by sophiekat View Post
. . . . . but if we circ them as infants we don't ever have to have those uncomfortable sex talks and take a hard look at what our kids might be doing

:
Totally. And I guess this skirts the whole issue of providing condoms to developing nations or poor people in the US, and possibly upsetting certain conservative religious elements. Just cut 'em all, and the US won't have to have that conversation with ourselves, politically.
 
#29 ·
$%@! the CDC.

Also the people who say vaxxing is safe and stand by while thousands of children die are are vaccine damaged (like my 2).

Ive come to believe that is the CDC says to do something do the exact opposites. They have been totally bought off by mainstream medicine, this makes me sick.
 
#30 ·
This is too upsetting for me to post a valuable response. I am disgusted with the direction this is going. But no stupid CDC recommendation will change how I feel about any of it.
 
#32 ·
Is the CDC going to take into account the other studies showing that
... circumcised men transfer HIV to women at a higher rate
... circumcised men wear condoms less often
... circumcised women get STD's less often

These clinical studies have not been accepted yet by a peer-reviewed journal and we already get this crap from the CDC???

My head is going to explode too.

Jessica
 
#34 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by BetsyNY View Post
It's cheaper still to just wear an effing condom. You could buy a thousand condoms for what one circumcision costs.
Ahh...but there's a price to be paid politically for supposedly encouraging sex before marriage by distributing free condoms, eh? You don't see the CDC encouraging that lately, do ya.
 
#36 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by mamakay View Post
These new studies are, IMO, creating an emotional contagion that's sweeping through the public health authorities all over the world.

Nope. Not on this side of Atlantic. The news was published on BBC. But they also published the fact that it is not a quick fix and circ does not protect against anything.

Here in Scandinavia the news was posted too but it only spoke about *adult* circ and warned that it can turn to false security.
 
#39 ·
The CDC just gave a resounding F.U. to women. While this practice may reduce HIV transmission to men, it does nothing for women except open them up to even more possibilty of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. I wonder about the political motivations involved the CDC's decision making. Could they be so sick that they see a disempowerment of women in our society as an added benefit?
 
#40 ·
OMG, reading that made me sick to my stomach. They said that "lack of male circumcision" is a risk factor for HIV. They make it sound like circumcision is some automatic, beneficial thing that we crazy intactivists are denying our sons!
 
#42 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by minkajane View Post
OMG, reading that made me sick to my stomach. They said that "lack of male circumcision" is a risk factor for HIV. They make it sound like circumcision is some automatic, beneficial thing that we crazy intactivists are denying our sons!
I noticed that wording, too.
 
#43 ·
Epidemiologically isn't it pretty obvious that the US has one of the highest non-religious circ rates in the world and we also have the highest rate of HIV infection in the developed countries? Can't people realize that if Circ really prevented AIDS transmission that we would have one of the lowest rates? Wasn't the Circ rate around 85-90% in the 60s and 70s? These men "came of age" in the 80's and 90's and if circ really prevented AIDS you'd expect to see a drop of a plateau in the number of new cases in men.

So if the CDC recommends it, do you think they will try to force parents to have their sons circ in the name of "public health" (sort of like vaccinations, they tell you the shots are "mandatory" and only peple who know about the exemptions and stand up for their children are allowed to opt out)?

This makes me so sad.
 
#48 ·
Even if circumcision completely eliminated the risk of HIV, I would not subject a non-consenting, non-sexually active minor child to it. Sexual HIV aquisition is still largely dependant on *behavioral factors*. To circumcise my young son presuming he'll be too stupid or lazy to properly protect himself through safer sex practices is just as offensive and insulting as circumcising him because I think he'll be too stupid or lazy to practice good hygiene.

Maybe other <edit: people who blindly follow, like sheep> who don't actually plan on putting the time and effort into raising their children, who are too embarassed to talk about sexual health will jump at the idea of decreasing HIV risk by amputating a large percentage of skin and other unique, nerve-laden structures from their infant son's primary sex organ. Sensible parents, however, aren't that gullible.

Jen
 
#49 ·
Quote:
In addition, while the prevalence of circumcision may be somewhat lower in racial and ethnic groups with higher rates of HIV infection, most Americans are already circumcised, and it is not known if men at higher risk for HIV infection would be willing to be circumcised, nor if parents would be willing to have their infants circumcised to reduce possible future HIV infection risk.
That right there is very, very scary.
If the CDC decides circumcision would be an effective disease preventive in, say, African Americans...and if they find that African Americans are "ignorant" about the disease preventing abilities of circumcision...they are also going to decide that the only "ethical" thing to do is "educate" the members of this "ethnic group" about how beneficial circumcision is.

Also notice that the CDC didn't factor in meatal stenosis as a complication of circumcision, either.
WTH????
 
#50 ·
Silly CDC. Even if circ lowers the infection rate by 50%, I know something much better: if all boys get their penises chopped off as infants (but leaving the tests intact so they can produce sperm and stuff) I bet the rates would fall by 100%! That would safe everyone sooooooooo much money! No more STDs! Why didn't the CDC think of something as simple and effective?
[/sarcasm]

Does anyone know the differences in new HIV cases in Europe or Australia or NZ or Canada vs. the USA? Wouldn't that tell us more about circ and HIV transmission?
:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top