Original sentence: Furthermore, circumcising a child strictly to protect him from HIV infection may be seen as permission, or even entitlement, by the child later in life to engage in dangerous sexual practices.If the child chooses to remain celibate as an adult, or if HIV is eliminated by the time the child is an adult, there surgery would be ineffective.Opponents of circumcision argue that advocating circumcision to prevent HIV may also detract from efforts to promote more effective means to protect the spread of the virus through sex such as the use of a condom.Others, however, argue that using every available means to halt the spread of HIV will be the most effective.There is some ethical debate over whether or not this finding is enough to justify medicinal circumcision of a child.They argue that not only will the child be at reduced risk of catching HIV, he will also enjoy other benefits.Those opposed argue that a child's sexual behaviour as an adult is very difficult to predict, as is the future of the HIV virus and treatment or prevention of AIDS
Edited sentence: Advocating circumcision to prevent HIV may also detract from efforts to promote more effective means to protect the spread of the virus through sex such as the use of a condom.Furthermore, circumcising a child strictly to protect him from HIV infection may be seen as permission by the child later in life to engage in dangerous sexual practices.If the child chooses to remain celibate as an adult for example, the surgery is a waste of time.It can also create a feeling of entitlement to do so.The same is true if HIV is eliminated by the time the child is an adult.There is much ethical debate over whether or not this finding is enough to justify medicinal circumcision of a child:  A child's sexual behaviour as an adult is very difficult to predict, as is the future of the HIV virus and treatment or prevention of AIDS