Quote:
Originally posted by fastpat
So, in summation, we have genital mutilation for religious reasons and for esthetics.
Sorry, Rick, I don't believe your studies controlled for sexual practices that aren't the norm. And, yes, homosexual sex isn't the norm, the norm is heterosexual sex. Remember the old saw, "Why was AID's research so difficult? It was next to impossible to get laboratory rats to have anal sex."
Scientifically, there is no valid argument for circumcision unless there are medical problems requiring intervention. The foreskin's existence is not a medical problem.
|
Paste that is a flat out idiotic argument.
Does it really matter whether you are dealing with homosexual sex or heterosexual sex? Both can transmit HIV. Homosexuals are at increased risk, but due to the prevalence of HIV in Africa, heterosexual transmission is most common.
Not only that, but if you take the time to actually READ the article (found in the Journal of Infectious Diseases) you would find that they specifically limited their research to examine the risk of female to male transmission. The men involved were heterosexuals.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JID/journal/issues/v191n4/33047/33047.html
The fact of the matter is that circumcision does appear to protect against HIV transmission, so much so that the WHO is considering mounting a voluntary circumcision program in Africa to try and help curb the epidemic. Whether or not you consider homosexual sex to be the "norm" has nothing to do with the issue. Disease by definition is not the "norm" so when you are trying to treat and/or prevent disease you must look at the specific situations in which that disease is transmitted.