« Science isn't the primary facet of this debate. | Main | Who should we blame for dereliction of duty? »

Six days

I predicted this, but I'm amazed at the speed and audacity with which the United Nations discarded the words adult and voluntary.

"These (African) countries should now prepare how to introduce circumcision on a large scale," UNAIDS chief Dr. Peter Piot told Reuters. "The science is clear."

Baby boys should be targeted first but then attention should switch to adolescent boys and adult men, said Piot, who is in New Delhi to meet Indian officials on how they plan to tackle the world's largest HIV/AIDS caseload.

The HIV crisis is raging in Africa among sexually-active adults, and UNAIDS wants to focus initial resources on circumcising baby boys. Baby boys can't fight back, and if you circumcise them young, they're much more likely to grow up and circumcise their own children. It's indoctrination to perpetuate an otherwise unthinkable practice. That's how it occurred in the United States in the early 20th century. It's how it will occur in Africa in the 21st century.

The United Nations is a despicable organization in the circumcision debate. It lacks any legitimate notion of human rights or gender equality. Baby boys are human beings with inherent rights, not tools for ideological social experimentation.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Six days:

» Merck Buys Rent-Seeking HPV Vaccination Order from Texas Governor from A Stitch in Haste
Texas governor Rick Perry has mandated compulsory vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) among prepubescent girls:

By issuing an
[Read More]

Comments

I like your writing, Tony,
"Baby boys are human beings with inherent rights, not tools for ideological social experimentation."
That's it exactly.
If this mad doctor is in India, he'll probably get the Indians circumcising, too. Then the Chinese, knowing their Indian neighbours to be no fools, may introduce the practice.
Of course, all this would take place against a very lively commercial background, with all the insurance companies and medical corporations gleefully raking in government contracts.
My God, they're positioning themselves to be able to deal on some sympathetic, basic human level with the next World leader, China. I wondered how they were going to do that. Smart. "I'm circumcised, your circumcised. Let's do business, after all, we both know how a rough, dry penis tip doesn't feel at all.".

Thanks for the compliment.

Unfortunately, I'm not surprised at the UN's plan. They are extremely pro-male infant circumcision. I'm just amazed at the brazen nature of their attempt to spread it around the world. And I've seen almost no one call them on this. Even if people don't care that this study will be implemented on baby boys, shouldn't they care about solving the HIV crisis they're rambling about? Even the most ardent pro-circumcision fan must acknowledge that adult men should be first. Hell, even that will end up migrating to boys with the old standby, "if it's good enough for me, it's good enough for my boy."

Hi, Tony, have you seen this site:

www.circumstitions.com/TVSitcoms.html

Very nice analysis of the prevalent underlying attitudes toward this ritual as disseminated through American media.

Yeah, I like that. And with TV shows on DVD, I can see the ones I've missed. I collect what I can, so that I have the reference resources. Although the usual opinion on television is not good.

By far my favorite is Penn & Teller's Bullshit.

The studies which allegedly show a reduction in HIV among circumcised men are highly questionable. Not one of them was finished, despite the protective affect appearing to decline well below the oft-reported 65%, and several of the subjects disappeared. The fact that one study described circumcision as "comparable to a vaccine of high efficacy" seems to show clear bias. They appear to have been seeking a certain result. One has to wonder how many of the people promoting circumcision in Africa are themselves circumcised. Daniel Halperin is the grandson of a mohel, and seems to think that "maybe in some small way (he's) destined to help pass along (circumcision)" so his objectivity is questionable.

Other epidemiological studies have shown no correlation between HIV and circumcision, but rather with the numbers of sex workers, or the prevalence of "dry sex".

The two continents with the highest rates of AIDS are the same two continents with the highest rates of male circumcision. Rwanda has almost double the rate of HIV in circed men than intact men, yet they've just started a nationwide circumcision campaign. Other countries where circumcised men are *more* likely to be HIV+ are Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, and Tanzania. That's six countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised. Something is very wrong here. These people aren't interested in fighting HIV, but in promoting circumcision (or sometimes anything-but-condoms), and their actions will cost lives.

Circumcised male virgins are more likely to be HIV+ than intact male virgins, as the operation sometimes infects men. The latest news is that circumcised HIV+ men appear more likely to transmit the virus to women than intact HIV+ men (even after the healing period is over). Eight additional women appear to have been infected during that study, solely because their husbands were circumcised.

Female circumcision seems to protect against HIV too btw, but we wouldn't investigate cutting off women's labia, and then start promoting that.

For a good summary of the case against promoting circumcision in Africa, see this link:
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html

Creative Commons License