Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
More Gov't Sponsored Endorsements for MGM
Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2006-12-14 15:18
Story here. Excerpt:
'Circumcision appears to reduce a man’s risk of contracting AIDS from heterosexual sex by half, United States government health officials said yesterday, and the directors of the two largest funds for fighting the disease said they would consider paying for circumcisions in high-risk countries.
The announcement was made by officials of the National Institutes of Health as they halted two clinical trials, in Kenya and Uganda, on the ground that not offering circumcision to all the men taking part would be unethical. The success of the trials confirmed a study done last year in South Africa.'
By this reasoning, it makes sense to cut off a baby's hands shortly after birth, too, as a means of reducing his risk of seeing arthritis form in his fingers later in life.
- Log in to post comments
Comments
Circumcision is completely unnecessary.
Reduce does not mean PREVENT.
Circumcision is completely unnecessary. It's backwards and a form of mutilation. If you believe in god then He intended males to have a foreskin, because that's how He created males. It's a natural part of the penis. God didn't create males with a a defect that needs to be cut away. Besides circumcision leaves a ugly scar and is a extremely painful procedure.
The foreskin not only protects the head of the penis, but it also keeps it sensentive thereby making sex more enjoyable for males and the foreskin with intact penises prevents desensitisation, lubricates during intercourse and masturbation etc. Most males in the world have intact penises.
For more information about the natural, intact penis you can go to this website http://net.indra.com/~shredder/intact/anatomy/ .
No need
In other words, if you are not living in Africa, you don't need circumcision at all. In a developed country you have more advanced means for protecting yourself in a sexual intercourse than by mutilating your genitals.
From ritual to science..
Seems to me they're trying to close the circle and complete the transition from ritual to science. Very worrying, especially because the negative effects are not mentioned. It should never ever be done on children.
They also haven't seem to have heard of the fact that the desensitization can keep men from using condoms because they feel even less with these.
I will not go into as much detail as another poster here did..
One thing I find interesting, is that they stopped the other two studies, because they said it would be unethical not to give the other men circumcision.
****************************
NOW WAIT A FUCKING MINUTE!!!
****************************
When they do studies on antidepressants, they don't stop the study because it is unethical, to give only a placebo to a person who is suffering. There's gotta be thousands of similar analogies. How about studies on nicotine patches, cholesterol meds, etc. etc?
Apparently, selective ethics has been applied to the circumcision study. Besides, anyone who wanted to drop out of the study, could do so at any point and go get circumcised. If the "experts" conducting the study respond to that by saying, "yes, but when they are young they are too ignorant to understand what is going on, or to make a decision to get the circumcision". My response would be, "then why the heck are you using them for subjects in the first place? You are already being unethical by taking advantage of them."
-Axolotl
What were the factors?
We do not know the factors of the groups. For example what were the average educational backgrounds of these Men? Were the Men that were not circmcised of the same economic level of the Men that were circumcised? Or were the Men that were not circumcised of a group that were not educated, poor etc. I wouldn't trust any study that doesn't lay all of the cards on the table because it means that they are trying to manipulate the data, and the populace.
Condoms and education are cheaper then doctors and surgery
So why not give out [more] condoms in Africa and have educators teach the people why they are needed and how to use them? Would be cheaper then paying for doctors to perform all these surgeries
Plus, much more effective as condoms are nearly 100% effective at preventing the transfer of STDs
I think I made a mistake, but still..
Apparently they thought it would be unethical not to OFFER the other men circumcision. But I'd like to know more details about this..would it have been true that the men did not even know, that there was such a thing AS circumcision? And why didn't the researchers think about how unethical they might be in the first place, before ever getting started? Maybe someone else complained.
--Axolotl