The final verdict is not in on the accumulating data from a number of studies, but if the current results are confirmed and replicated, we will soon see a major push for circumcision as an AIDS-preventing measure.

The primary argument will be that circumcision is cheap, and effective. Cheaper and more effective than large-scale education programs, cheaper and more effective than attempting to convince hundreds of millions of people in poverty to always use condoms. And cheaper in the long run than doing nothing, because significantly reducing the rate of infection means than astronomical treatment and care costs down the road, when the infection finally manifests, are significantly reduced.

And of course far, far cheaper that the complicated drug regimen now available to control HIV in affluent countries.

Result: Once again, we are about to see how readily men with power agree to cut the penises of all men. It is only the latest chapter in a very old story.

Caveat, before we proceed: Our argument here is not necessarily, totally anti-circumcision. If an adult male wishes to have his foreskin cut off, that's his choice. But for adults to inflict intense pain and permanent bodily mutilation on infants and children is another matter entirely.

The Pro's, the Anti's, the Indifferent's
The largest group of pro-circumcision people consists of members of various religions which practice amputation of the foreskin either at birth (Judaism) or near puberty (Islam). Primarily because of the global reach of Islam, we’re talking here in terms of hundreds of millions of circumcisions.

At various times in the 20th century, physicians, mainly in America and Great Britain, also cast their lot with the pro’s. Doctors in Great Britain backed away several decades ago. Only within the last ten years have American pediatricians, as a group, withdrawn their endorsement of circumcision as a hygienic measurement; they have in fact been moving slowly in the direction of condemning the cut as unnecessary and, even, cruel. (See the most recent report from the American Academy of Pediatricians, linked on page 4 of this story.)

Pause here for an astonishing note: Until very recently, American circumcisions, performed right after birth, were done (are you ready?) without anesthesia. Not even topical anesthesia was used. You can do a search and find graphic photographs of infants (such as the one at the top of this page; see also page five of this report) at the moment of unanesthetised cutting which will do little to bolster your faith in the wisdom of pediatricians.

There are several groups of organized anti’s. The most prominent are CIRP and NOHARMM (see page 4). Though vocal, articulate, and well-informed, their numbers, compared to those of the pro’s are minuscule.

Then we have the indifferent’s, the majority of humanity who see nothing wrong with cutting one of the most nerve-rich parts of an infant’s body at birth.