Yes, this is a truly terrible idea. In the first place, it will be at least 13 or 14 years, and in most cases a bit longer, before any babies risk sexual exposure to HIV. We have no idea what will be going on with the epidemic by then. But even if nothing changes in terms of prevention, exposure liability and treatment, circumcision does not offer real protection, at best it reduces risk slightly. There is a serious danger that some people will take the fact they have been circumcised as a rationalization for having unsafe sex; in other words, this could well backfire. We have no idea whether it will actually reduce HIV risk, it might actually increase it at least for some young men.

So there is no valid evidentiary basis for this recommendation.

The CDC is blindly and ignorantly considering recommending circumcision, based on inconclusive studies not done in the US, even the American Association of Pediatrics, who has never recommended circumcision in its 70 year history is against them, this is bs, circumcision does not prevent HIV, I am circumcised and very unhappy about it, I am restoring my foreskin, and I will never circumcise my son, don't you think if circumcision prevented anything, 80% of the world would not be uncircumcised.

"Medicaid should cover circumcision, so that all parents can weigh the pros and cons and make a choice."

I think the choice should be that of the person being circumcised. And will the "pros and cons" Medicaid would help parents consider include any arguments for respecting people's autonomy over their own bodies, and protecting them from unnecessary, permanent change?

If you think it is just skin, you don't have it. 20,000 FINE TOUCH AND STRETCH nerve endings should NOT be amputated from baby boys without asking the owner. The CDC wants to take their main pleasure zones and expose them to staph infection. This is such crap.

There is a greater chance of the baby boy getting MRSA staph from this in a US hospital than the same kid getting HIV through his life. This is such a strange idea that one wonders why the US Meds have this obsession. We have higher HIV and very high Circ rate as compared to natural uncut EU and JP. Could it be cut male Drs and female MDs that are from cut tradition are trying to find a way to keep this barbaric practice going in the US? No other developed country is saying this! They think we are obsessed with choping off baby boy genitals.

The alleged risk change (not seen in non african studies) is from 3.2% risk to about 1.78 % risk. Oh and BTW, circumcision raises (makes transmission more likely) the HIV for women. It is not undetermined if circ has value for women, male circ raises a women's risk. Look it up the same Africa studies found cut transfered HIV at a much higher rate. The individual does not get much from this. One needs to avoid risk and use a condom.

This is a fraud pushed by people that don't have it or don't know the main male pleasure zones are in the parts cut off by circumcision. One thing is certain, no person should have pleasure zones amputated without being asked. Stop doing this to babies.

Seems to me that promoting condom usage by ALL men would be alot more effective and less costly (financially, physically).

The same studies that showed decreased HIV incidence among African circumcised males also found an almost equivalent increase in transmission to women. Not to mention that FGM also has been shown to decrease HIV transmission...and no one is proposing that be done at birth.

This is transparently the result of the prior assumption that circumcision is normal and usual anyway and thus it only makes sense to encourage it if it might have even a marginal effect on reducing HIV in the US.

While Goldstein strives to be neutral about this, this neutrality is a facade because given how uncertain and minimal circumcision of American men might be with regard to reducing HIV—as Goldstein herself admits—it's striking that she nevertheless believes that such a radical medical procedure is arguably justified.

This is laughably wrong-headed, and for those opposed to circumcision on cruelty grounds, infuriating. The miniscule possible protection that may result is not worth the mutiliation of millions of male babies. Meanwhile, the millions paid out by Medicaid for "just in case" circumcisions could be better used for safe-sex education, condoms, and HIV treatment. Sheesh.

Recommending circumcision is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. 88% of men who acquired HIV in the US last year did so via male-to-male sex or IV drug use or both. Of the 12% associated with heterosexual sex, 11% (about 4,000) was considered 'high-risk' which means sex with people known to be, or at high risk to be infected (i.e. IV drug users). The at risk male population (15-64) is more than 100,000,000. Count both the high and low risk hetero the risk is not more than 2 or 3 tenths of a percent (0.3%) over 60 years. The odds of those in the outside the high risk group over their lifetime is perhaps an order of magnitude smaller, hundredths of a percent. This is not a reason to support routine circumcision.

Yes, this is a truly terrible idea. In the first place, it will be at least 13 or 14 years, and in most cases a bit longer, before any babies risk sexual exposure to HIV. We have no idea what will be going on with the epidemic by then. But even if nothing changes in terms of prevention, exposure liability and treatment, circumcision does not offer real protection, at best it reduces risk slightly.

All that is true, but in addition, there's nothing preventing a young man from choosing circumcision at the time he is becoming sexually active. The only time he would *not* have that choice is if it had been made for him as an infant. There is clearly no such benefit *during his childhood*, so infant circumcision needlessly deprives him of the ability to choose for himself as an adult.

It is wrong to mutilate infants' genitals. Period. Why is this even a question? The public health issue is irrelevant.

I used to think I had a sexual dysfunction - It hurt every time I did it and was dry/rough. Finally tried uncut - much more lubed, sensitive, and no more dry rough, hard pounding. To top it off it even feels good for him with a condom on..

The design of links of london

Bracelets is special because no other bracelets are designed like the links of london Bracelets. The bracelets are very unique jewelries that have been in production for a long time.