A Feb. 23 article in the New York Times revealed:

Circumcision may provide even more protection against AIDS than was realized when two clinical trials in Africa were stopped two months ago because the results were so clear, according to studies being published today....

[T]he final data from the trials, to be published today in the British medical journal The Lancet, suggest that circumcision reduces a man's risk by as much as 65 percent....

"If we had an AIDS vaccine that was performing as well as this, it would be the talk of the town"... [said Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases].

Speaking of vaccines, hasn't the HPV vaccine been reported to coincidentally stop about the same percentage (70) of cervical cancer? Hasn't this been why legislators around the country are promoting mandated HPV vaccines?

It seems to me legislators should also mandate male circumcision, to be fair.

[Hat tip: Cal Skinner]

[Photo, courtesy of Aids.net, is of Australian Professor Roger Short holding a circumcision device.]

Hold on a minute there.. you can't compare a vaccine to elective surgery. So I hope you're being sarcastic.

And don't forget that drug companies making campaign contributions can explain why lawmakers would want to mandate such a poor vaccine.

Well, at the moment the HPV vaccine is elective. I propose that if it is made mandatory, so should male circumcision.

I'm sure urologists make campaign contributions, too.

How do you propose enforcing mandatory circumcision? inspection on the first day of middle school?

My son would proudly show off his uncut manhood.

Mandate mastectomies for girls from families with a history of breast cancer. It's more common than both HPV and HIV combined. Silly idea, huh?

To be fair, legislators should mandate HPV vaccine for boys if it's mandated for girls. The vaccine should work better with less side effects than circumcision.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that Pro-life and Pro-Circumcision are incompatible stances. How can you defend a parent's right to chop off pieces of their newborn while attacking a parent's right to abort an unborn child? By being pro-life, I'm guessing you call every child a precious sacred being, but by being pro-circumcision you are saying "uh, well, I mean only 99% of that being is precious, we need to cut off part of the naughty bits".