As you might have heard, the CDC is considering advocating circumcision for American infants, citing some reports that it can reduce HIV transmission by as much as 50% for men.

Now, you all know my feelings towards circumcision (if not, read it here link) But I'll stick to facts, rather than opinion.

I would like to ask a hypothetical question.

According to 'Guidelines for the Management and Post Exposure Prophylaxis of Individuals who Sustain Nonoccupational Exposure to HIV, ANCAHRD/CTARC Bulletin, February 2001' a uncircumcised man has a 1 in 725 chance of being infected with HIV from having unprotected intercourse (with him doing the insertion.) That's each time - obviously it's like playing the lottery every time you have sex.

Based on the CDC assumption that circumcision cuts that risk by 50%, a man has a 1,250 chance of getting infected.

And, finally, assuming that a man's foreskin (containing 50,000 nerve endings) is equivalent to a woman's clitoris (also containing 50,000 nerve endings) I asked the following:

If you knew it would reduce your daughter's chance of HIV infection, should she choose to have unprotected sex with somebody who was possibly infected, from 1 in 750 to 1 in 1,250, would you advocate a 'clitectomy' - removing her clitoris - at birth, like the CDC is advocating boys are circumcised?

Now, don't worry too much about the facts. I'm sure they're debatable and I accept that I might have made a few assumptions. Just concentrate on the question.

If it reduced the risk, would you cut off your infant daughter's clitoris?

I apologise in advance for anybody I offend with this question, but it's something I'm very passionate about and am curious. less