San Francisco debates banning circumcision.

Terry

San Francisco is known for its strict, but controversial laws. You can get fined for sitting on the city’s sidewalks during the day or for not segregating your garbage. You also won’t be able to find Happy Meal toys since they’re outlawed.

The city is looking to add a new ban to the list as Lloyd Schofield is proposing the ban on circumcision. Under his proposal, you can’t be circumcised even for religious reasons. If you don’t follow the ban, you can get fined for a thousand dollars and even jailed for a year.

Schofield is a part of advocates that are known as “intactivitists”. They’re proposing to make it “unlawful to circumcise, excise, cut, or mutilate the whole or any part of the foreskin, testicles, or penis”. The ban is only applicable for males below 18 years old.

Circumcision has long been a controversial issue that has been debated on countless of times. People do it for several reasons – mainly because of religion and culture. On the other side of the coin, parents who refuse to do it to their children say that circumcision is mutilation.

Doctors and scientists are also debating on its benefits and risks. However, they’re still unable to come up with solid proof regarding its benefits and risks.

“In the past, we’ve said newborn circumcision has benefits and risks,” said Dr. Douglas Diekema. “Given the fact that neither the risks nor benefits are particularly compelling, this is a decision to be made by parents,” he also said.

http://www.allabouttopnews.com/san-francisco-may-ban-circumcision/851202/

What say you?
An archaic and barbaric religious ritual, or a preventative measure to helmet cheese?

I say the former.
Why would anyone deliberately inflict such pain on a child and then celebrate it?

The Master

Schmucks

starbelgrade

Terry wrote: »

Why would anyone deliberately inflict such pain on a child and then celebrate it?

Religion.

You see, it's not only Catholics who are adept at inflicting pain on children.

Cavehill Red

Circumcision prevents the spread of HIV.

You'd think they'd be encouraging the snip in San Fran on that basis alone.

Ronin247

Dont care......its no skin off my nose

Terry

starbelgrade wrote: »

Religion.

You see, it's not only Catholics who are adept at inflicting pain on children.

Yeah, I couldn't mention the Jews for fear of being called a holocaust denier, even though I know it happened.

Mind you, the majority of Americans seem to have adopted this particular custom.

Poor Uncle Tom

To be or not to be in da hood, that is the question....

Pompey Magnus

Terry wrote: »

Why would anyone deliberately inflict such pain on a child and then celebrate it?

I'd say genital mutilation of a child is barbaric, but I will raise the stakes and say genital mutilation followed by the rabbi sucking the baby's bleeding dick, as happens in metzitzah b'peh, is downright disgusting.

starbelgrade

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Circumcision prevents the spread of HIV.

You'd think they'd be encouraging the snip in San Fran on that basis alone.

Why is that?

Do you think that kids in San Francisco have more of a chance of growing up as homosexuals?

Do certain cities make people gay?

Wolfe Tone

Most Americans seem to get it done for some reason.

Terry

Cavehill Red wrote: »

idiotic comment

implied gay slur.

Well done.

ejmaztec

Tayto won't be able to make any more crisps if they run out of Californian foreskins.

Poor Uncle Tom

starbelgrade wrote: »

Do certain cities make people gay?

Yes, Mincek...:p

JohnK

Unless its done for damn good medical reasons its just bloody child abuse

phill106

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

I'd say genital mutilation of a child is barbaric, but I will raise the stakes and say genital mutilation followed by the rabbi sucking the baby's bleeding dick, as happens in metzitzah b'peh, is downright disgusting.

uggghhh

PeterIanStaker

I honestly don't see the drawback . . . . .

Wolfe Tone

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

I'd say genital mutilation of a child is barbaric, but I will raise the stakes and say genital mutilation followed by the rabbi sucking the baby's bleeding dick, as happens in metzitzah b'peh, is downright disgusting.

WTF!!?? That cant be true.




As an aside, Terry you are just one of us plebs now, no bolded name for you! Cen fath?

Princess Peach

From a ladies point of view, nothing wrong with circumcision.

Pompey Magnus

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Yes, Mincek...:p

GayDancek also

starbelgrade

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

As an aside, Terry you are just one of us plebs now, no bolded name for you! Cen fath?

He joined the AA.

strobe

Princess Peach wrote: »

From a ladies point of view, nothing wrong with circumcision.

Spread your legs and lets this hag at you so...... Or are you le trolling?

Nodin

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

WTF!!?? That cant be true.

............?

Alas..........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah

ejmaztec

Nodin wrote: »

Alas..........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah

So, it's done by a mole?:eek:

Terry

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

As an aside, Terry you are just one of us plebs now, no bolded name for you! Cen fath?

I'm running for President at the next election, so I didn't want to compromise the neutral political stance of boards.

starbelgrade wrote: »

He joined the AA.

Automobile Association? I don't drive.
Alcoholics Anonymous? I'm not exactly anonymous. Also, they're all god botherers. I've no time for that crap.

Absurdum

Princess Peach wrote: »

From a ladies point of view, nothing wrong with circumcision.

what! why?!

Cavehill Red

starbelgrade wrote: »

Why is that?

Do you think that kids in San Francisco have more of a chance of growing up as homosexuals?

Do certain cities make people gay?

Wanna have a stab at the proportion of gay people in San Fran compared to other cities?

Princess Peach

Absurdum wrote: »

what! why?!

I won't go into all the details, but it worked out pretty well for me anyway! Him having it done I mean.

Mike 1972

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Circumcision prevents the spread of HIV.

Condoms tend to work better

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Wanna have a stab at the proportion of gay people in San Fran compared to other cities?

Relevence ?????

Manic Moran

I was born in San Francisco, and got snipped (apparently) as a matter of course. Doesn't seem to have done me any harm. Actually, for about the first two decades, I didn't even know.

At least, I'm told I have. I've never actually gone around comparing with other people's willies to determine which components I may or may not still have on issue.

NTM

Mike 1972

Manic Moran wrote: »

Doesn't seem to have done me any harm.

Other peoples experience may vary...........

goose2005

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

I honestly don't see the drawback . . . . .

Would you punch a baby in the face? After all, the wounds will heal...

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Circumcision prevents the spread of HIV.

You'd think they'd be encouraging the snip in San Fran on that basis alone.

If FGM prevented STDs, would it be promoted? Of course not. But because it's men, no-one cares.

Helix

my missus wants any boys we have to be circumcised... i disagree

i think its barbaric tbh

Cavehill Red

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Condoms tend to work better

True. But circumcision works better than non-circumcision too. And not everyone will wear a condom.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Relevence ?????

It's a very gay town. The modern HIV infection launched in the bathhouses there. The last three syphilis epidemics began there. People in SF aren't taking sufficient sexual health precautions. At least as regards HIV, there would be a meagre protection offered by circumcision.
So I find it ironic that of all towns this is the one looking to ban it.
Beyond anything else, it's an infringement of human choice and freedom of religion to seek to do so.

Terry

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Wanna have a stab at the proportion of gay people in San Fran compared to other cities?

I'm from Leixlip. You're from Dublin.
Leixlip does not have any gay pubs, but Dublin does.

Hmm. I think you may be gay. After all, there are gay pubs where you live.

Now, aside from homosexuality, which has absolutely no effect on society and is completley irrelevant to this thread, do you have an opinion on circumcision?
If not, why do you keep mentioning homosexuality in San Francisco? Do you have something to tell us? Something that you may be ashamed of?

Being gay is natural. It's ok. We won't slate you. In fact, boards has a forum dedicated to those of you who prefer the company of people of your own gender. You can connect with like minded people there, but you won't be excluded from the rest of the site. You're still free to post here in AH.
You don't need to be ashamed.

Cavehill Red

Try reading my last post, Terry.
It answers your queries.

PeterIanStaker

goose2005 wrote: »

Would you punch a baby in the face? After all, the wounds will heal...



If FGM prevented STDs, would it be promoted? Of course not. But because it's men, no-one cares.

I dont think you got my joke somehow :pac:
hint, it was a dick joke.

niallers1

Was the reason for doing it years gone by for hygiene purposes before people took regular showers.
It is an unnessesary trauma for anybody to go through in my opinion.

I personally think it's horific to inflict such a thing on a child.

Mike 1972

Cavehill Red wrote: »

True. But circumcision works better than non-circumcision too. And not everyone will wear a condom..

Cant people wait until their bit older before having it decided for them deciding on what HIV prevention measures are appropriate for them ?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It's a very gay town.

For historical/geographical reasons it is but how is it relevent

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The modern HIV infection launched in the bathhouses there......So I find it ironic that of all towns this is the one looking to ban it.

That was bacjk in the early 1980's. At the risk of making myself feel very old Im going to write it off as aincent history. In the 21st Century the association between homosexuality and HIV is hopelessly out of date. Indeed in many places (due to the relevent communities being more clued in about safer sex and condom use) the incidince of HIV amongst historically "high risk groups" is the same or even lower than amonger the general population.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Beyond anything else, it's an infringement of human choice and freedom of religion to seek to do so.

On the contrary.

Manic Moran

starbelgrade wrote: »

Why is that?

Do you think that kids in San Francisco have more of a chance of growing up as homosexuals?

Do certain cities make people gay?

No, but SF's gay population is on a per-capita basis higher than that of other cities in the US. Nothing to do with genetics, everything to do with the fact that it's got a reputation of being the most gay-tolerant city in the US and people tend to move to places that they will enjoy living.

Now, of course, a ban in SF isn't going to have any effect at all upon these immigrants, so if all the other correlations are as advertised (and I don't know if they are or not, I'm just looking at the logic here), it won't have any direct effect, but if they're looking to set a precedent to be followed nationwide, then the irony argument does have some basis.

NTM

Terry

Cavehill Red wrote: »

True. But circumcision works better than non-circumcision too. And not everyone will wear a condom.

So having a circumcision will prevent you from getting HIV?
Interesting.
Please tell me how that works.

It's a very gay town.

Yeah. The gays are the only ones with HIV.

The modern HIV infection launched in the bathhouses there. The last three syphilis epidemics began there.

Source, please. Reliable source only though.
Anti-butt ****ing websites don't count.

People in SF aren't taking sufficient sexual health precautions. At least as regards HIV, there would be a meagre protection offered by circumcision.

Where are you getting this crap from?

Beyond anything else, it's an infringement of human choice and freedom of religion to seek to do so.

A new born child does not have the capability to make this choice. On top of that, a new born child will not be having sex for quite some time.

Im really astounded at the idiocy contained within your posts.

Cavehill Red

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Cant people wait until their bit older before having it decided for them deciding on what HIV prevention measures are appropriate for them ?

Yup, that's not a bad idea. I'm not opposed to it. But people of certain religions would be.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

For historical/geographical reasons it is but how is it relevent

For the reason I gave - SF has been the centre of at least four world STD epidemics, one of which was HIV, which is impeded by circumcision.
I just found it ironic is all.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

That was bacjk in the early 1980's. At the risk of making myself feel very old Im going to write it off as aincent history. In the 21st Century the association between homosexuality and HIV is hopelessly obsolete. Indeed in many places (due to the relevent communities being more clued in about safer sex and condom use) the incidince of HIV amongst historically "high risk" groups is the same or even lower than amonger the general population.

Cool, the HIV outbreak was ancient history. The last two syphilis outbreaks were this century though, and they both began there too.
I wish SF had a more 'safe sex' culture, but it doesn't as STI epidemiology spreads reveal.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

On the contrary.

I think I know what you're getting at - it's akin to the idea that giving children a religion is child abuse. How could they 'choose' their faith at such a young age?
I agree. And the Jewish tradition of the bloodsucking chills me too.
But circumcision isn't a mutilation like so-called female circumcision. And it has potential health benefits too. It's one religious tradition that I don't have a major problem with. After all, it's actually saved many lives in Africa.

Paparazzo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Circumcision prevents the spread of HIV.

You'd think they'd be encouraging the snip in San Fran on that basis alone.

Do you think everyone should get their foreskin removed when they're born? Or just ones born in a city thats population has certain percentage of gay people?

Terry

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Try reading my last post, Terry.
It answers your queries.

Read my last reply. It questions many of your answers.

Mike 1972

Is this notion that circumcision/genital mutilation prevents HIV/other STD's pretty universally accepted by the scientific community or is it just a theory which happens to be fashionable at the moment (like the one a while back that Nonoxynol-9 did the same thing)

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Yup, that's not a bad idea. I'm not opposed to it. But people of certain religions would be.

Let them eat cake !

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I think I know what you're getting at - it's akin to the idea that giving children a religion is child abuse. How could they 'choose' their faith at such a young age?

Its actually worse than that At least religious indoctrination is reversable. Circumcision is less so.

Millicent

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It's a very gay town. The modern HIV infection launched in the bathhouses there. The last three syphilis epidemics began there. People in SF aren't taking sufficient sexual health precautions. At least as regards HIV, there would be a meagre protection offered by circumcision.
So I find it ironic that of all towns this is the one looking to ban it.
Beyond anything else, it's an infringement of human choice and freedom of religion to seek to do so.

HIV isn't a gay disease. This is teetering on the brink of being downright inflammatory. Actually, scratch that, this is a bloody offensive post.

Cavehill Red

Terry wrote: »

So having a circumcision will prevent you from getting HIV?
Interesting.
Please tell me how that works.

Observational studies in Kenya and Uganda revealed that circumscribed tribes had lower rates of HIV (up to 9 times lower) than uncircumscribed tribes.
Controlled studies that followed the observational studies have largely confirmed this.
The theory is that the cells under the foreskin (which are exposed during sex) are more likely to absorb a virus like HIV than the skin on the head of the penis itself, making circumcised men less likely to contract HIV during sex.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2007/s04/en/index.html

Terry wrote: »

Yeah. The gays are the only ones with HIV.

No, in Ireland it's the sub-Saharan Africans and the junkies too.

Terry wrote: »

Source, please. Reliable source only though.
Anti-butt ****ing websites don't count.

The Gay Men's Health Project and the Health Protection Surveillance Centre both reported that both syphilis epidemics this century were first reported in San Francisco.
I don't have internet links to hand.

Terry wrote: »

Where are you getting this crap from?

Launching one STI on the world is unfortunate. Two is doubly unfortunate. When you get to four in 35 years, we're not talking unfortunate anymore.

Terry wrote: »

A new born child does not have the capability to make this choice. On top of that, a new born child will not be having sex for quite some time.

Indeed. I've no problem whether people are circumcised or not. Circumcision at post-puberty age would be just as protective against HIV, but also significantly more painful for the subject, though.

Terry wrote: »

Im really astounded at the idiocy contained within your posts.

Facts are idiotic now?

Paparazzo

Millicent wrote: »

HIV isn't a gay disease. This is teetering on the brink of being downright inflammatory. Actually, scratch that, this is a bloody offensive post.

That's the idea. Welcome to after hours on a Friday night

Millicent

Terry wrote: »

So having a circumcision will prevent you from getting HIV?
Interesting.
Please tell me how that works.

He's actually got a point on circumcision, at least where initial results are concerned (pains me to say it). The CDC cited a couple of studies here to show I'd say a causal link but there may be something to it. However, the whole gay tarring is still offensive.

Cavehill Red

Millicent wrote: »

HIV isn't a gay disease. This is teetering on the brink of being downright inflammatory. Actually, scratch that, this is a bloody offensive post.

HIV spread from the gay community within San Francisco and was first identified there.
The last three syphilis epidemics have all been primarily gay phenomena (hence the outreach awareness programme the Gay Men's Health Project used to run about syphilis in nightclubs and bars until 2005) and they all began in San Francisco too.
I'm not making any comment about gay people in general. But there is clearly a problem with STI epidemics originating in San Francisco, and originating among the gay community.

Millicent

Cavehill Red wrote: »

HIV spread from the gay community within San Francisco and was first identified there.
The last three syphilis epidemics have all been primarily gay phenomena (hence the outreach awareness programme the Gay Men's Health Project used to run about syphilis in nightclubs and bars until 2005) and they all began in San Francisco too.
I'm not making any comment about gay people in general. But there is clearly a problem with STI epidemics originating in San Francisco, and originating among the gay community.

Link please? Because I have the CDC here again (you'll forgive me if I go with their view over yours) who say that it was first identified in the Congo in 1959. Also makes mention of patients displaying symptoms in New York and Los Angeles in the early 70s -- no mention of San Francisco bathhouses.

Cavehill Red

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Is this notion that circumcision/genital mutilation prevents HIV/other STD's pretty universally accepted by the scientific community or is it just a theory which happens to be fashionable at the moment (like the one a while back that Nonoxynol-9 did the same thing)

It's accepted by the WHO, but the ins and outs are still being studied.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

ILet them eat cake !

If only the world were that easy.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

IIts actually worse than that At least religious indoctrination is reversable. Circumcision is less so.

One might argue that religious indoctrination causes more lasting damage than a minor operation that actually provides health benefits.