Unfortunately you are makeing an even worse mistake than preearth, since I presume you have read all the text.
So if you did, ImagingGeek, why write a lie, and state that I wrote:-
"Circumcision can cut a man's risk of HIV infection by 60 per cent"
I have written no such thing,
Second sentence of your first post:
Circumcision can cut a man's risk of HIV infection by 60 per cent, and in the past African men have queued up to be circumcised. (post #30982).
I do realise you were quoting an article, but it was that specific sentence - WHICH YOU PUT IN YOUR POST - that I replied to. I'd also point out that you've claimed to not have mentioned HIV or AIDS in your post, ad yet those very terms appear several times in your first post in this thread.
I'd also point out that I am (or at least was, as of 2008) a HIV researcher. This is an area of my expertise...
Since there is a subtle difference between HIV infection, and an HIV-AIDS infection, (to give it the correct name).
There is no "subtle difference". HIV infection simply denotes that a patient is infected with the HIV virus. HIV-AIDS denotes that the HIV infection has progressed to the point where the patient is now immunocomprimised. The onset of AIDS can be defined in two ways - functionally (presence of opportunistic infections) or clinically (depletion of CD4+ immune cells to <200/ul).
I should like to clear up a couple of important points,....HIV-AID's is in the blood.
Actually, the majority of the HIV virus is present in the lymphoid tissue underlying the lumen of the gut (malt/galt). Only a few percent of the total virus is blood-born.
The proof is that...(it's antibodys can easily be detected).
Antibodies to any pathogen will be found in the blood, regardless of where the infection itself is. For example, bacterial infections which grow in cavities and never breach the body wall (i.e. EPEC in the gut, some forms of bacterial pneumonia) still result in the presence of blood-born antibodies. The reason is simple - antibodies are produced in lymphoid tissues which are generally situated a long ways away from common sites of infection. The antibodies are secreted into lymph, which rejoins the blood in the subclavian vein. From the blood the antibodies have free access to all tissues (via lymphatic flow), as well as access to the gut, pulmonary space, mucosa, etc, via specialised transporters that export the antibody.
Quite simply because AID's uses various routes to infect, the most obvious ones. being normal kissing and tongueing.
Absolute nonsense. "AIDS" is not transmitted, the HIV virus is. This does not occur readily via the oral cavity. There is no documented cases of normall kissing transmitting the virus. There is a few (less than a hundred) cases were open-mouthed kissing has resulted in transmission - and in each and every case both the infected individual and the infectee had open sores in their mouth (i.e. direct blood-to-blood contact was made). The oral cavity is a very hostile place for the HIV virus.
I believe it was Bryan who suggested that circumcision does nothing to prevent male-to-female infection transmission.
On the contrary, a man with no foreskin cannot deliver a load of smegma laden germs
Reality is against this. Studies have been conducted, looking at the effect of circumcision on male-to-female transmission. And the answer is that there is no effect:
Baeten J, Donnell D, Kapiga S, et al. Male circumcision and risk of male-to-female HIV-1 transmission: a multinational prospective study in African HIV-1-serodiscordant couples. AIDS. 2010 Mar 13;24(5):737-44.
The reason is simple - HIV is a weak virus; a few minutes exposure to even mildly dehydrating conditions kill it. Ergo, it does not survive long under the foreskin. However, semen of an HIV+ male is full of active virions, and the vaginal vault is a ideal place for it to survive (moist, no light).
Question...has any man that has been circumcised as a baby......ever vocally complained of being mutilated later in life?
I think no,...not ever
You think wrong. There are thousands of procedures preformed every year to rebuild or repair the foreskin of males - obviously they're not happy about it. Go to any atheist (former christian, etc) webboards and you find dozens angry with their parents forcing of circumcision onto them. There are even groups seeking to make male circumcision illegal in many countries - often fronted by men who are angry about being circumsized. And there are all sorts of general anti-circumcision groups; mothers against circumcision being the first one that google pulls up. They all use the term "mutilation" quite extensively...
...yep, 5 seconds on google could have helped you avoid a little embarrassment.
You make a good point when you state that a non-consenting..unable to consent child,is totally wrong.
Well I take it that you have no trust in your parents?
I fail to see the connection between trust and consent, one can consent without an iota of trust, and trusting someone doesn't impart consent. The issue is simple - circumcision is unnecessary and irreversible. It also carries a range of medical risks, which in the western world at least, outweigh potential benefits (statistically speaking). Ergo, it is not a choice parents should be making for their kids; its a choice that should be left upto the child, once they reach an age where consent can be given and the child is capable of understanding the risks.
Bryan
