CDC wants to circumcise all boys

Report: CDC Considers Promoting 'Universal Circumcision'

Monday, August 24, 2009

    * Print
    * ShareThis

In an effort to reduce the spread of HIV, public health officials are considering the promotion of “universal circumcision” for all baby boys born in the United States.

The move comes after officials analyzed the results of several studies that show in African countries hit hard by HIV, men who were circumcised reduced their infection risk by half, the New York Times reported. However, those studies focused on heterosexual men who are at risk of getting HIV from infected female partners. The main issue in the U.S. is men who have sex with men.

In 2008, the CDC estimated that more than 56,000 people were newly infected with HIV in 2006 (the most recent year that data are available). Over half of those new infections occurred in gay and bisexual men.

Click here for more facts on circumcision from the CDC.

Meanwhile, critics of the recommendation said it subjects newborn boys to “medically unnecessary” surgery without their consent.

But Dr. Peter Kilmarx, chief of epidemiology for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the CDC, told the Times that any step that could stop the spread of HIV must be given “serious consideration.”

“We have a significant HIV epidemic in this country, and we really need to look carefully at any potential intervention that could be another tool in the toolbox we use to address the epidemic,” Kilmarx told the newspaper. “What we’ve heard from our consultants is that there would be a benefit for infants from infant circumcision, and that the benefits outweigh the risks.”

An official draft of the proposed recommendations by the CDC is due out by the end of the year. In the meantime, the CDC is hosting its National HIV Prevention Conference in Atlanta this week.
What about just telling them to keep their circumcised/uncircumcised selves in their pants for a while? That would solve HIV within five years.
As I recall, Dr. Brian Morris (author of the book In Favor of Circumcision) explained that there is only an increased risk of contracting HIV if uncir'd if one already has humanpapillomavirus (HPV).  This particular infection (HPV) is also behind the increased risk for cervical cancer in women partners of men who are uncircumcised.  Thus, it seems like a wiser policy to call for the routine circumcision of men who are infected with HPV.
This will certainly be one way to make EVERYONE angry! Good going, Barry!
Quote:Public health officials are considering promoting routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States to reduce the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS.

[ ... ]
For now, the focus of public health officials in this country appears to be on making recommendations for newborns, a prevention strategy that would only pay off many years from now. Critics say it subjects baby boys to medically unnecessary surgery without their consent.
Wow. I thought I couldn't dislike the President more. It happened.
One of the arguments some make for abortion is that they don't want government control over the bodies of women.

I wonder if those who make that argument will oppose mandatory circumcision.  My guess is no.  They don't care about the unborn, why would they care about the newborn?
Maybe this will help convince my husband we shouldn't get the baby circumcised, if we have a boy.
(08-24-2009, 01:45 PM)Credo Wrote: Wow. I thought I couldn't dislike the President more. It happened.

And his first year is not even up.  He's just getting warmed up.
Whoops, sorry, Quis. I didn't even think of looking in the Health forum first.  :-[
So the 'Messiah' even wants to mandate how our genitalia looks.

This news article is seriously messed up.

And who are "public health officials" anyway?!  I don't remember voting these Commies into office!

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)