View Full Version : Do boys in Mexico get circumcised?

Apr 6, 2007, 05:53 PM
Does anyone know if boys in Mexico get circumcised? :o

Apr 6, 2007, 06:22 PM
Most likely because the primary religion in that region is catholic and catholics do circumsize.

Apr 7, 2007, 10:06 AM
Thank you for answering!!

Apr 7, 2007, 10:14 AM
Understand that this is a personal choice too. So some parents may choose not to circumsize their sons.

Apr 7, 2007, 10:20 AM
True, thanks :-)

Apr 7, 2007, 10:43 AM
Yes it is like asking if boys in the US get circumsize or not, In the US some do, others don't. So it is with Mexico, it is often a family choice of their customs and relgiions.

Apr 7, 2007, 06:15 PM
Absolutely false!

Apr 7, 2007, 06:23 PM
Does anyone know if boys in Mexico get circumcised? :o
The rate of circumcision is very low in Mexico and in all Latin cultures. The US is the ONLY nation that still cuts most infants for non-religious reasons.

Catholics DO NOT circumcise, except in the US. Official Catholic policy condemns circumcision: TLC Tugger FAQ: Christianity and Circumcision (http://tlctugger.com/FAQ-CHRISTIANITY.htm)

85% of the world's Catholics are intact.

Apr 7, 2007, 07:08 PM
Catholics in most countries do still circumcise, there are not different US rules and different other nations, It appears that many other nations still do, and it appears it is not as much religious as medical. A lot of the studies still show there is still good medical reason to have it done.

Apr 7, 2007, 07:16 PM
I have to ask why do you want to know. Are there any legitimate medical reasons for it?

Apr 7, 2007, 07:34 PM
It has been for many years a firm belief that it will help in the prevention of future infections, and even with current information, because of the possibility of sanitation it still is a good medical reason for it to be done.

And esp when you get into less developed nations, it would be even more important than in the US today. IT is still a fairly recommended procedure by the reconised medical community.

But in general in Christianity it is not done for religious reasons, but for medical reasons.

Apr 8, 2007, 07:01 AM
I will look at your web sight again, I mean it's just hard for someone who is circum. To think that they have been mutilated. Although you are likely correct, since I don't know what it is like to have foreskin, it is a little confusing. Does it serve a sexual purpose?

Apr 8, 2007, 08:00 AM
I guess the World Health Org does not court
epidemic.[14] The World Health Organisation recommended in 2007 that "promoting male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men."[15]

In a study of more than 3,000 young men, those who were circumcised were 65 percent less likely to be infected with HIV compared with those who were not circumcised.

Circumcision was so effective at preventing HIV transmission that the trial was stopped early so that all the young men in the study could be offered the procedure, he tells WebMD.

The study included 3,128 uncircumcised young men aged 18 to 24 in a rural area outside of Johannesburg, South Africa. The men were randomly assigned either to undergo the procedure or remain uncircumcised. All the men were heterosexual.

By about 1 1/2 years later, 51 men who had not been circumcised had been infected with HIV, compared with only 18 who had the procedure, the study showed.

FOXNews.com - Circumcision May Reduce Risk of HIV Infection - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163695,00.html)

Apr 8, 2007, 08:18 AM
Good facts Chuck, That alone is enough to at least consider it. Hiv and aids are a horrible thing ti live (and die) with. If there is possibly any advantage in this respect, it must be taken advantage of.

Apr 8, 2007, 05:05 PM
I guess the World Health Org does not count
They are not recommending infant circumcision, but you would be correct. Despite the name, they are a charity, not a medical association.

Understand they are desperate. They are describing as a SUCCESS the fact that the circumcised African men contracted HIV at SIX TIMES the rate for African-American men. Since their hands are somewhat tied by the Bush administration's abstinence-only stipulations, they are blinded to the obvious effectiveness of condoms, which they could give away at a cost of just 3 cents each. In Thailand and Cambodia, the active sex-tourism trade has not been plagued by high HIV transmission, because of near universal and enforced condom usage.

All three of the recent "controlled" trials were ended before the agreed protocol time. That's like gambling that your coin will come up heads 75% of the time, agreeing to toss it twenty times to prove the point, and then tossing - HEAD, TAIL, HEAD, HEAD - STOP! Pay up.

Ending the trials early exaggerated the effect of the cut mens' post-surgical abstinence period and the effect of HIV not being detectable often until months after infection. The WHO and the researchers know this. The people involved - Bailey, Halperin, DeCock - are long-time circ justifiers (Google their writings). They have overstated every last thing about these findings, including the estimate of the present percent of circumcised men globally (they say 30%, most others say 18% - 20%).

And why? Who would argue with the fact that amputating a part reduces that chance of that part getting infected, but that is true for a single contact. Cut men are less likely to use condoms, and their partners will now have less leverage to force the issue due to these irresponsible reports. Unfortunately, very recent reports indicate the HIV+ cut men are MORE likely to transmit HIV to their partners, and also that circumcised African youth (not yet sexually active) are MORE likely to have AIDS.

Even if amputating a body part reduces that chance of that part getting infected, it is still true that in the long term, unsafe sex will kill, cut or not. Six African nations have markedly higher AIDS rates among the circumcised. Most of the half-million American men who have died of AIDS were cut at birth. That experiment was *over* long ago. If circumcision is an AIDS preventive, it is a very poor one.


51 men who had not been circumcised had been infected with HIV, compared with only 18 who had the procedure, the study showed. You are accidentally exaggerating. The South Africa trial (the oldest of the three) had serious methodological flaws. It has now come out that the cut men were told to abstain for months and then to use condoms, while the intact men got no such counsel. This is also the study that was cut shortest.


Apr 8, 2007, 05:18 PM
Sorry no, World Health Org is part of the UN and they provide health care directly in many areas ( I have a good friend who was a doctor with them over sea)

And all this proves is that perhaps doctors need to be better trained in doing circumisisms if there has been problems. Also of course if infection from the operation has been the issue, then it only proves that the doctors need better procedures, not stoping the procedures.

Many operations in Africa kill pateints from minor things, it only proves their entire medical conditions need improvement, not that all of their operations need to be stopped.

And my facts merely come off the web sites posted. With that said, you should know the facts you have been trying to disprove them on a dozen other chat sites you are posting your opinions on.

But it is obvous you are firm in your belief, and it is backed by many, and others feel it is a personal choice, that many make first for religious beliefs, and others for health reasons, And that both sides have their right to do it or not to do it.

That is where we separate since your web site seems to want to take away personal choice for this medical procedure.

Apr 10, 2007, 04:24 AM
Most likely because the primary religion in that region is catholic and catholics do circumsize.

kepi (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/kepi.html) disagrees: WRONG! Judaism circumcises, but Judaism is not the primary religion in Mexico.

Good thing you did not post an answer to this question Kepi, as I would have to disagree with you. Yes, the Jewish faith does circumcise, 8 days after the birth of the baby boy at a ceremony called a Bris.

However, it is not wrong that catholics circumcise, although we do not have a ceremony for it. I am catholic and I have 3 male children, a father, a brother, and a husband, and a brother-in-law, not to mention uncles, cousins and nephews, all are circumcised.

But did you also read further ahead Kepi to where I stated that circumcision is also a personal CHOICE!! Probably not.

Apr 10, 2007, 07:39 PM
catholics circumciseMaybe in the US, but only rarely elsewhere. OFFICIAL Catholic policy says no to circumcision. See papal edicts re-affirmed in 1952 and Cathecism article 2297.

The Philippines has a high rate of genital cutting among Catholics in defiance of Catholic policy, but it is mostly supercision (slit the top of the skin tube so it can flop free of the glans, nothing amputated), not actually circumcision.


Apr 10, 2007, 08:05 PM
For once I agree with TLCTugger. In Mexico, circumcision is looked down upon. I know. I'm Mexican.

Sep 26, 2009, 10:06 PM
Does anyone know if boys in Mexico get circumcised? :o

Not the majority are not just because they are catholic does not mean the are circ. The bible clearly states you do not have to get circed

Jan 16, 2011, 11:38 AM
Traditionally, there has been a significantly higher circumcision rate for Catholics than for others in the U.S. And it has been Catholic hospital policy as well, but no more so than with other hospitals. In other words, it has never been a Catholic religious "rule," although quite a few guys - even Catholic guys - think that's why they are cut.
Mexican Americans are getting cut, and getting their kids here cut as well. And it is practiced in Mexico too, but the rate is nowhere near that of the U.S.