Response from: Brian    (02/26/07 2:19pm)

Circumcision reduces the chance of contracting HIV... so what's your point? what do you mean by "embrace the practice"?

Don't use this news to push for more infant circumcision. Circumcision is still surgery complete with risks and the boy may grow into a man that places value on his missing foreskin. Reducing the chance to catch HIV through vaginal sex is no justification for circumcising a newborn.

Response from: Gloria    (02/26/07 4:26pm)

brian: i am not using this news to push for circumcision. i am just wondering if association to lower HIV risk would be enough for the rest of the world to have their men circumcised. but from your reaction, i guess not. :-D

i may not be the right person to state whether young boys or newlyborn boys should be circumcised because where I came from circumcision is really not an issue to debate...boys are circumcised, period. losing a foreskin doesn't have anything to do with them growing up to be less of a man.

maybe I am out of context again, the topic should be AIDS, and right, circumcision is not the be-all and end-all in its prevention.

Response from: Ron Low    (03/03/07 4:46pm)

If you don't want to be seen as looney condoning genital cutting of minors, you might want to be more careful than to claim "Circumcision Prevents AIDS" which is not even what the findings claim.

450,000 US men who were cut at birth have died of AIDS. Even in the African nations of Ghana, Rwanda, Lesotho, Malawi, Cameroon, and Tanzania, AIDS is markedly more prevalent among the circumcised.

Circumcision DOES NOT prevent AIDS, and even if it did, it's still HIS body and HIS decision. It costs the UN just 3 cents to give away a condom. There's your headline.

Response from: Sean    (03/04/07 3:20am)

Very good news! Circumcsion is very beneficial, and should be promoted actively.

Response from: joe    (07/04/07 12:50pm)

Ridiculous. Circumcision DOES NOT prevent AIDS. All that study shows is that a particular group of men have a lower incidence of the disease. How was the study conducted? What controls were used? How were the men monitored regarding their sexual activity? The lower incidence could be a result of the circumcised men having fewer sexual partners than their intact counterparts. EDUCATION is still the best prophylactic. Let's not encourage a cruel practice that deprives men of the full range of their sexual pleasure.

Response from: jessie    (09/19/08 10:12pm)

i agree with other poster. what did this study really show. could it be possibly that in those countries, men who are more upper class, and are better educated are cirmcumsized, while men who are poorer and are less educated aren't. Thus they make poorer decisions, such as having unprotected sex. There are so many variables that we don't know. Plus this is a study in countries where AIDs is very prevelant ( i;m an awful speller i know) how does that effect this study.