Doctors Group: AAP conflict of interest hampers honest circumcision policy

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by GenitalIntegrityNow, Jun 4, 2008.

  1. jd11 Registered Member

    • Under those conditions, are prophylactic meds the only reasonable way to protect ones self?
    • Are prophylactic meds the most efficient way to protect ones self?
    • Who is making the decision to take prophylactic meds?
    • Can you tell me why the AFAO, the SIDA, and other organizations characterize this as 'context-specific'?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    The benefit of circumcising infants is that in this way you can be pretty sure of performing the procedure before they become sexually active.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. GenitalIntegrityNow Registered Member

    I think you have missed my point. I am challenging you to provide evidence that newborn circumcision prevents HIV transmission later in life, after they are sexually active. There is no such evidence.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. BlueRanger Registered Member

    God, you people who think that removing the foreskin helps against HIV are pathetic. Do any of you know w these studies were done, and what research was put into it? These studies are a load of crap. Now, apparently, I can't post any links yet, which I was trying to.

    HIV doesn't get "trapped" under the skin. If a circumcised guy has sex with someone who has HIV and doesn't wear a condom, he most likely will still get it because his penis is being soaked in bodily fluids that contain the disease, and being circumcised isn't going to do a damn bit of difference.

Share This Page