Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The most important result of any of these statements is that is provides parents with more information. There is a lot of information out there, and hopefully the biggest shift between now and even 20 years ago is that most people don't just routinely circumcise because that's the way it's always been, but they do the research, and then make the best decision for their situation.
I personally would not factor into the equation of my decision making a study of 2,000 men living in an AIDS epidemic area of Kenya, men who do not practice safe sex, but if others find this information useful, then so be it.
I live in a very international part of the country. I know actually 7 people FROM Kenya and I know a ton of Gay men. It is totally possible they sleep with someone who sleeps with someone who sleeps with my kid when they are an adult. It happens.
I live in a very international part of the country. I know actually 7 people FROM Kenya and I know a ton of Gay men.
Cool, good for you. I come from a part of the world with the highest incidence if HIV transmission. Seems as though we should both be advocating for people to use safe sexual practices at all times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taboo2
It is totally possible they sleep with someone who sleeps with someone who sleeps with my kid when they are an adult. It happens.
Lucky them. They can either play Russian roulette, and bare-back it (remember, the circumcision does not prevent AIDS transmission, just reduces it), or they can engage in safe sexual practices. Seems a no brainer to me, and what I will teach my children.
Perhaps, but then again, piercing my child's ears at 8 months could be considered body mutilation. Dying my child's hair pink could be considered body mutilation. All of my tattoo's could be considered body mutilation.
They are, with the exception of coloring the hair since that does grow out and does not cause permanent damage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorthy
They sure could but none of them are covered by insurance and none of them are routine procedures performed at hospitals on newborns.
I do think circumcision should be covered by insurance when it is a medical necessity. Just like plastic surgery should be covered by insurance when it is a medical necessity.
I whole heartedly agree. My son fell into the medical necessity category and had to have a circ done. I wish it hadnt happened, but unfortunately it did.
Money before people.... a win for the doctors who are making money off of this barbaric procedure. A loss for baby boys.
How absurd for anyone to think that circumcision negates the need for using protection... and if you're using protection, then you don't need to cut off part of your body. Baby boys in Europe aren't circed, and they don't seem to have much trouble keeping it clean and covered. Odd that they're comparing newborns here with men in a third world country instead of other newborns in first world countries like ours...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
