New study re: circumcision and AIDS

Aeolus · Post by **Aeolus** » 2006-12-18 05:49pm

SirNitram wrote:
Aeolus wrote:It is a very minor surgery that has been done for thousands of years. It could potentially save millions of lives. You would rather rail against the church and accomplish nothing.
Your the one who is not thinking rationally. So call me all the names you want. It clearly makes you feel like your argument has actual merit.
Yes, of course. Thinking about the costs of anesthetic, medical practitioners, facilities, and then the huge problem of infection is 'Railing against the Church'. You're such a trolling, pathetic retard it's sad.

Your refusal to confront even one point is noted. It must be a concession. Concession Accepted.

I will conceed that I don't know how much this will cost. It may not be cost effective.But unlike you I am willing to admit that is has the potential to save many lives and should at least be considered.

Post by **Cairber** » 2006-12-18 05:51pm

meatal stenosis is a complicatino that occurs in 10% of circumcised men. It is pretty significant yet rarely spoken about in the USA.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-12-18 05:52pm

Aeolus wrote: I will conceed that I don't know how much this will cost. It may not be cost effective.But unlike you I am willing to admit that is has the potential to save many lives and should at least be considered.

Are you going to bother addressing my earlier point about hacking out tonsils above, or are you just going to conveniently ignore it because it tears your idiotic argument to shreds?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-12-18 06:15pm

Aeolus wrote: I will conceed that I don't know how much this will cost. It may not be cost effective.But unlike you I am willing to admit that is has the potential to save many lives and should at least be considered.

How about infection? Going to admit that even in 1st world countries, 10% of those circumsized are infected? Going to concede that the infection rate will be much higher in Africa?

Going to concede that you fucking red herring'd about the Church?

Or will you continue to be an ignorant troll, pretending I'm not considering other options.

Post by **Edi** » 2006-12-19 04:12am

I see that Aeolus is up to his standard trolling and stinking up any threads related to this topic. Every single topic we've had over circumcision, he's been the same, ignoring points in favor of his IWOI and vehemently defending the practice.

Aeolus, if you're so dead set on it, have bits of your own penis lopped off, but quit trying to push it on everyone else. You don't have any ground to stand on and your trolling is getting really fucking tiresome.

Edi

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2006-12-19 12:51pm

So you would let millions die on a point of principal? This is something that can be accomplished soon and doesnt actually do any harm.

But unlike you I am willing to admit that is has the potential to save many lives and should at least be considered.

I don't think you understand the bigger picture here. Even in the most IDEAL circumstances, all this procedure would do would be to DELAY the amount of transmissions and infections. In likely practice? I'll bet you could add up the toll of infections and compications and find a very high number of death related incidences and long-term damage. On top of this, I'll bet you dollars to donuts a great portion of these people will only hear what they want to hear and think this makes them near immune to hiv and fuck around with even MORE abandon.

The point everyone here is making is that it's like shooting feathers at an eagle. It's a step in the right direction, but that's about all you can say. People are looking for ways to reduce transmission and prevent new infections, but circumcision is a very STUPID way to attempt this.

It's only of any benefit to someone having UNPROTECTED sex and as I pointed out earlier, you may just DELAY infection. They will still be exposed to the virus and eventually contract it. Most men in the US are circumcised and I can assure you that even homosexual men that are pure tops AND heterosexual men have caught it through normal sex, so it's not a truly USEFUL preventative at all. Only a condom is statistically high enough as to transmission blocking to be truly useful.

Circumcision is an extra step that is useless in and of itself because it actualy UNDERMINES the point of condoms being the first and foremost form of protection. Because with a condom, it doesn't make one bit of fucking difference if you are cut or uncut. Your protection from a rubber IS THE SAME.

This is why people are jumping on you Aeolus. The operation is a distraction from the only real protection methods of any worth, and on top of this it is a permanent injury to your dick that severely lowers sensitivity and violates the bodily integrity of newborns that are undoubtedly going to be mass circumcised by the millions after this stupid study that in my opinion will do more fucking harm than good.

Post by **Cairber** » 2006-12-19 01:15pm

Then you get fuckheads publishing shit like this:

link

Now we must have a much harder debate. First, how do we get people to be circumcised? I believe we should market male circumcision as an HIV prevention intervention. Though this 'invisible condom' is a rational way to achieve transmission risk reduction during sex, we still need to carefully consider just how to pitch the intervention.

Emphasis mine

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-12-19 01:23pm

Aeolus wrote: I will conceed that I don't know how much this will cost. It may not be cost effective.But unlike you I am willing to admit that is has the potential to save many lives and should at least be considered.

So would castration of all the uneducated people.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2006-12-19 09:00pm

wolveraptor wrote:
Appendix.....
Tonsils........
Prostrate Gland.......
Yes, it is common practice to remove those at birth, isn't it? Wait, no, it's not at all.

You misunderstood. I was just pointing out that the argument that surgery isn't advocated to prevent or remove disease isn't true.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2006-12-20 01:47am

Why stick to male circumcision? Mutilating, then sewing up the genitals of women should knock the transmission rate down even farther.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2006-12-20 02:27am

Flagg wrote:Why stick to male circumcision? Mutilating, then sewing up the genitals of women should knock the transmission rate down even farther.

Even better: requiring that all newborns have their whole external genitalia removed via a special ultra-wide dado saw. We won't anesthetize because we're cheap bastards and the baby won't feel a thing anyway. That'll solve all the problems with this 'sex' business once and for all!