Mandatory Circumcision For Public School Enrollment

July 12, 2006

Last week I did a blog entitled “Yes, I Am Pro-choice.” The topic was that while I applaud the new HPV vaccine, I do not believe it should be “required” to be enrolled in government schools.

Actual liberal comments to the post:

“This is an unprecedented opportunity to dramatically reduce the prevalence of cervical cancer in America”


“The policy of not admitting children without vaccines is not only aimed at preventing infection in elementary school, but its goal is also to create a society full of immune individuals, since so many people go to public schools.

Making it mandatory for admittance into schools is a convenient way of making sure that this disease dies out quickly.”

Today, I read that circumcision could reduce the risk for HIV:

Researchers believe circumcision helps cut infection risk because the foreskin is covered in cells the virus seems able to easily infect. The virus may also survive better in a warm, wet environment like that found beneath a foreskin.

So if men were circumcised, fewer would become infected and thus could not infect their female partners.

Hmm, based on the “typical liberal response” to the HPV Vaccine, does it not make sense to require circumcision prior to enrolling in schools? After all, it would be an “unprecedented opportunity to dramatically reduce the prevalence of” HIV “in America.” Plus, “Making it mandatory for admittance into schools is a convenient way of making sure that this disease dies out quickly.”

6 Responses to Mandatory Circumcision For Public School Enrollment

  1. Linda on January 10, 2012 at 5:39 am

    If we are going to require girls to have the HPV vacine, then I am 100% in favor of requiring boys to be circumcised. Something they should have anyway.

    • brenda on July 9, 2016 at 10:33 am

      Go and have circumcision yourself, it is as cruel for boys as it would be for you to go and have your clit cut off

  2. Camilla on February 21, 2012 at 9:54 am

    It is reasonable that schools should be able to require all pupils to be vacinated against any disease that could spread between children and which could be dangerous to at least some of the children or members of the families they come from. I’m thinking here of measils, mumps, German measils, whooping cough, diphtheria, TB etc. Clearly there is no risk of HIV, cervical cancer, syphallis etc hitting the population of kids in the same way as they are not transmittable by contact, sneazing etc so while parents may want to take medical advice on any protective rtreatements out there that may protect their children in (much) later life it is not for the school to get involved in such matters. Yes by all means offer the HPV vacination to pupils as it is best to get girls before they become sexualy active but don’t make it a requirement of all girls before they can attend the school. As for the comment above about circumcision… excluding religious convictions there is no reason to inflict significant, possibly dangerous and sexually crippling surgery on boys. Want to reduce AIDS spread? Then improve sex education and ignore the religious zealots that would object. Use of barrier contraception, abstaining from sex, limiting sexual partners, practicing safe sex, masturbating instead of having sex, having medical checks if worried are all far more sensible than torturing your sons and leaving them less than they were for the rest of their lives.

  3. Linda on April 23, 2014 at 4:49 am

    We all want to protect our children. And do what is best for their furture. I had my son circumcised. I don’t think this should be used as an ammittence factor for school. I feel he will have life long benefits from it.

  4. Jeremy Scott Miller on November 22, 2016 at 9:09 pm

    I called it rape to my parents face!

  5. Linda on February 15, 2017 at 7:07 am

    I am 100% in favor of circumcision but I do not think it should be required by government