> Their review of previous studies of circumcision and HIV showed that the
> virus is usually passed through the penis and that men who have been
> circumcised are two to eight times less likely to become infected with HIV.
These "studies" were totally invalid: they were merely surveys of African
males from different cultures comparing infection rates among those who
practiced circumcision and those who didn't. The results they saw could
easily be attributed to the cultural differences themselves, not to the
circumcision. The rest is pure speculation.
But even if they /were/ valid, they're no excuse for the barbarity of
circumcising boys too young to make a rational decsion for themselves.
Practitioners of this form of ritual child abuse will stop at nothing
to justify the deed by any pseudo-scientific means they can find, and
have not always balked at total fabrication either (like the totally
false, but still often heard, story that female partners of intact men
have higher rates of cervical cancer).
I am not one of those who bends over backward for children's rights;
I would grant a lot of leeway to parents on many things. But parents
cannot beat a child, starve em, force em into labor, or otherwise
physically harm em. Why, then, do we allow a parent to permanently
multilate a child by removing a normal, healthy, functional part of
eir body?
More information about the fight to end this cruel practice can be
found at <http://www.nocirc.org/>.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:03 MDT