Whether you're serious about it or not, cutting off part of a baby's genitals is still wrong.

If it was wrong for someone to do it to you, then it's wrong for you to have it done to your son.

ABC stands for Abstinence, Being Faithful, and Condoms btw.

Condoms really are an effective strategy against HIV, unlike circumcision.

^^ AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations ^^

And this rose to the surface with all that to choose from?

Of course cutting parts off healthy babies is barbaric. Over 90% of the non-Muslim world does not circumcise and they're doing fine.

And if you think circumcision prevents AIDS, you have been fooled. In the US most of the dead men victimzed by AIDS were circumcised at birth.

I agree, circumcision is barbaric, and if I find that barbaric doctor who did that I'll kill him too, slowly, by cutting off parts of him till he bleeds to death.

I don't understand the "like father like son" part though, I have 3 sons, all intact (uncircumcised). Any doctor who tried to come near their genitals with a sharp object would have felt my wrath.

Had the doctors have cut of a different part of the writers body would he have had them do the same to his sons? When will it stop? How about with you in your family!

When the matter of male circumcision for HIV is raised anywhere on the net the first responses will be from a gay dominated group of anti-circumcision activists. Already they have posted a response here. WHO and UNAIDS in a joint statement found: "The research evidence that male circumcision is efficacious in reducing sexual transmission of HIV from women to men is compelling. The partial protective effect of male circumcision is remarkably consistent across the observational studies (ecological, cross-sectional and cohort) and the three randomized controlled trials conducted in diverse settings. The three randomised controlled trials showed that male circumcision performed by well-trained medical professionals was safe and reduced the risk of acquiring HIV infection by approximately 60%. The efficacy of male circumcision in reducing female to male transmission of HIV has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is an important landmark in the history of HIV prevention." And as a result of the conclusions the WHO and UNAIDS recommended as follows: "Male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention. And. Promoting male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men." So who are we to believe? The WHO and UNAIDS or some gay dominated group with psychosexual agenda?