Saturday May 5, 2007, 8:21 am
Thank you Madalena, for this important posting.

Please note carefully:

In addition, circumcised men, with one-fourth the sensitivity of intact men, might decline to wear further-desensitizing condoms, increasing their and their partner’s risk to infectious diseases.

Saturday May 5, 2007, 8:23 am
The above quote comes from: http://www.icgi.org/2007/03/study-confirms-male-circumcision-is-genital-mutilation/

Saturday May 5, 2007, 3:07 pm
That was excellent!! Very clear & easy to understand. I love the way it highlights the history of circumcision and how ridiculous and unfounded all the reasons are for doing this to our baby boys. Makes one think twice about this new HIV study that states circumcision helps to cut down on AIDS (which I don't buy at all!).

Sunday May 6, 2007, 12:21 am
PLEASE, watch the slide show. See for yourselves how absolutely ABSURD the "reasoning" for this atrocity has been. It's literally amazing how gullible we humans are sometimes.
In 1971, the AAP first declared circumcision as unnecessary and medically invalid. Yet even today, they still allow their members to perform this hideous 'operation'! http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/904962205
Petition to the AAP to STOP RIC(routine infant circumcision)
In the US and Canada, this has become a culturally accepted form of child abuse. The perception that this is 'harmless' must be changed.

Doctors Opposing Circumcision HIV Statement

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html

All three studies found that non-circumcised males contract HIV infection more quickly than circumcised males. This may be because the circumcised males required a period of abstinence after their circumcision. All three studies were terminated early, before the incidence of infection in circumcised males caught up with the incidence of infection in the non-circumcised males. If the studies had continued for their scheduled time, it is probable that there would have been little difference between the circumcised group and the non-circumcised group. Mills & Siegfried point out that early termination of such studies cause the benefits to be exaggerated.

The United States has the highest rate of HIV infection and the highest rate of male circumcision in the industrialized world. Male circumcision, therefore, cannot reasonably be thought to prevent HIV infection.

Circumcision does not prevent HIV infection.

The high infant mortality rate in the African countries hardest hit by the HIV epidemic means many children will die before they become sexually active, further vitiating any protective effect of infant circumcision. The time, effort and money would be better spent on community health measures that would preserve their lives and those of their parents.

Condoms have been shown to be 80-90% effective at preventing HIV transmission. The use of condoms is necessary to prevent infection whether or not the male is circumcised.

Sunday May 6, 2007, 9:07 am
I agree with you Lauren.