Anybody who recommends circumcision as a means to
have less chance to become infected with hiv will be
held accountable, responsible and guilty of falsely
giving people the idea to undergo circumcision who then
in fact become infected after not having used protection/
condoms, it is not just a little bit wrong, this idea is
very, VERY wrong.

It looks like the links were taken out of my comment, but you can find all those quotes at the medical societies' own websites.

I believe in the snip purely for cleanliness. Men who get the snip later in life, as a choice, experience mega pain but are more than happy with the results...speaking from experience of friends.

I saw a TV documentary where 2 African villages near one another - one snipped one not - where the rate of HIV was greater in the village of non-snipped as viruses can can enter the body through the glands[?]in the foreskin and it can often be unhygienic.

Then there are those purist who have their foreskin reattached using skin from other areas of their body and things under the 'hood' eventually return to almost normal.

Mind you if I had to wear a kilt in Scotland I'd definitely want a foreskin to stop the rub of the coarse tweed!!

The comments from Anonymous about Africa is highly misleading. In a recent analysis of 13 sub saharan African countries by leading French demographics expert, Garenne, in 8 there was no difference in HIV infection among cut and uncut, in two the cut had lower HIV but in THREE the cut had higher HIV. This is why the results trumpeted from the controlled trials seem dubious. Can he explain why Israel has the same rate as Sweden? Why does the US in which 80% of adult males are cut have one of the highest HIV rates in the developed world?. In Britain 6.1% of cut gay men have HIV as opposed to 5% of the uncut - a significant difference.

As for the hygiene argument, come on Anonymous have you never got up close and personal with a vulva? We have the same flaps and folds which harbour smegma, viruses and bacteria if we don't take care of them. The answer is clearly not surgery or we'd cut little girls flaps off wouldn't we? Given that in Tanzania it was found that women who'd had their flaps excised had 40% less HIV this analogy is more pertinent than ever. The failure to translate this finding into a randomised controlled trial of female 'snipping' shows that infant genital surgery is not a proportionate response to a risk of HIV among adults who choose risky behaviour.

As for pain we know babies experience what you call 'mega pain' in genital surgery. How dare you imply they dont'? A baby has the additional psychological trauma of not understanding why this is being done to him by those he trusts and not knowing during it when it will stop. An adult man can demand general anaesthetic if he prefers and use as many analgaesics in the recovery period as he needs. He also won't have his wound soaked in faeces every day until it heals.

Anonymous i know who you are and your campaign to institute forced circ is a disgrace. It's not too late to recognise you are wrong and join us in protecting babies boys and men.

I am 100% against strongly encouraging parents to routinely circumcise their newborn boys.

Here are my reasons:

The circumcision rate has decreased in the United States to the lowest point since before WWII. More and more people are realizing that the United States being the only Westernized country with the majority of boys being circumcised for non-religious reasons is wrong in its thinking.

The foreskin, which is a healthy body part that serves a major function in protecting the glans of newborns, belongs to the owner. Parents and doctors should only concern themselves in the VERY rare event that there is an anomaly necessitating the modification or removing of the foreskin. This is a civil rights issue. In our country, we have seen lawsuits filed against doctors and parents by young men who have been circumcised against their will. I believe there will be an increase in this activity. We have laws against modifying female genitalia, why not protect males as well? This is a double standard. The female genitalia is responsible for spreading and harboring disease, yet we protect females. "Circumcised" females would also be cleaner and lead to higher reductions in transferring disease.

The foreskin protects the glans, keeping the skin of the glans soft and sensitive. This is a major plus during sexual activity, whether it be masturbation, intercourse or other activity. In addition, the female and male both benefit from the foreskin's gliding action leading to more pleasure for both parties.

The foreskin has some 20,000 nerve receptors, providing more sexual satisfaction for the male.

The removal of the foreskin often has adverse results. Many men say they feel robbed because they find a hardening of the skin on the glans leading to less sensitivity. Many men feel robbed because they did not have the choice to choose between having and not having a foreskin. Circumcision also leads to too much or too little skin being removed. Too much skin removed leads to painful erections. Too little removed leads to re-circumcisions and penile skin adhesions. Also, the instance of meatal stenosis is high. Cosmetically, a lot of circumcisions have glaring scarring that is there for the life of the male.

The act of circumcising a newborn is painful. Even though there are guidelines strongly recommending proper anesthesia, many doctors use no anesthesia or use Emla Cream which is not recommended by the manufacturer or the AAP. Imagine, the pain of feces and urine stinging the open wound over the week to ten days it takes to fully heal.

A study that was unveiled on the opening day of the CDC Convention in Atlanta showed very clearly that mass circumcision would not make a dent in the number of HIV/Aids cases in the United States. Almost all of the cases are derived from male-to-male sex and dirty needles.

There is a belief that uncircumcised males suffer from an elevated level of urinary tract infections. Yes, there is a slight elevation compared to their circumcised counterparts, but still below the incidence of urinary tract infections in baby girls.

There is a belief that uncircumcised males will get penis cancer. As you know, it is VERY rare to see penis cancer in an uncircumcised man.

There is a belief that chlamydia is spread by uncircumcised males. It is a rampant disease with no relation to circumcision status.

It is said there is a slight increase in cases of syphilis and gonorrhea instances in and transference from uncircumcised males to others. It is important to note that these are slight increases.

As a country, we need to closely observe why in several European countries, circumcision rates are under 10% and HIV rates are also minuscule. I imagine it is because of more education of youth and adults so that protective actions are taken prior to sex. Unprotected sex is the problem, not the foreskin. The CDC's energies would be far better spent on massive education on how to have safe sex and about the need for abstinence if protection isn't used. Let's say the cost of circumcision is $300.00 and let's say that all insurance companies and all state Medicaid programs covered neonatal circumcision. In one year, a million circumcisions would cost $300,000,000. That is a lot of money that could be put into education and the availability of free condoms. And, because this program would not be aimed solely at circumcision (which would have only a slight positive effect of the spreading of disease) we would see a major downturn in all types of diseases and in children being born out of wedlock and in other non-planned pregnancies. We are talking about BILLIONS of dollars in benefit every year.

Leave our foreskins alone. Appreciate all of the positive aspects of leaving little babies intact. Should a young man decide he wants a circumcision, then it becomes his choice. In writing a recommendation, clearly state the true statements regarding the minor benefits of circumcision, but instead of recommending universal circumcision of baby boys, stress what needs to be done in preventing contact between infected and unifected people and stress the need for medical screening of sexually active teens and adults to identify and treat STD's.

Yes, the African studies that have received the widest press deal with female to male transfer of HIV. The females there are the harbingers, unlike in the USA. That is why male circumcision is not expected to have significant positve effects on HIV transmission in the US as nearly all of the US cases are because of shared needles and gay male-to-male sex among mostly circumcised men!

You mention your brother's status, but what about your partner? did you ever consider that he feels good about his status and himself? what message are you addressing to him when you use words such as intact penis? would you imply that there is something wrong with his penis?
everyone's decision is private and personal of course, but be careful about the arguments that you use and the reasons you pick and how to voice them, do not make your partner feel inferior and incomplete, and I am sure that your in laws did not love and care about their son any less than you love yours when they took their decision when he was born.