That is not in the least part ironic.

Why do people struggle with that word so much? \

I blame Alanis.

gay/hippie town........

oh sheesh not this discussion again.

Studies done show circumcision lowers hiv rates. but it is not so simple. Real data doesn't show the same numbers.. actual hiv rates among cut vs noncut shows the exact opposite.

They big hiv tests were cutting adult males not just testing cut vs non cut from birth.. big difference. the whole test is skewed.. first off if you cut an adult males dick he probably wont be having sex for awhile thus avoiding sex that could contract hiv.. so of course you will have lower hiv rates among the cut men because they arent having sex..

Orgasms happen within, has nothing to do with foreskin. Less sensitive if your not cut as well.:thumbsup

The African tests in high HIV areas that I've seen, didn't involve men newly circumcised, not sure why you would assume that.

Certainly puts it into perspective :thumbsup

Religions are out of date. They were set up as control mechanisms, now we have modern control mechanisms that have replaced them; which are quite crap too. Instead of lets go and spread religion, it's now let's go and fight terror (in those oil rich countries that always seem to be full or terrorists).

I'm really shocked this thread hasn't degenerated into gnarly uncut dick pictures.

This won't pass, funny how San Francisco certainly wants the right to choose gay marriage and the right to choose an abortion, but doesn't want to give parents the right to choose circumcision.

http://www.circinfo.net/images/wiswe...sprevented.jpg

WTF? I didn't know Obama had power over state laws...

i didn't assume it , it was in the world health organization facts about the latest hiv studies.

testing any other way would be highly suspect.. adult aged males who are circumcised already would be in an entirely different social/religious structure as it is not a normal thing.

testing from birth would require both subjects to be from a similar religious/social background

kind of a silly stat.. you could probably show the same chart for female circumcision .

if 2 million men had their hands chopped off you would prevent

8000 broken arms
5000 broken fingers
200 cases of hand cancer
500 cases of finger cancer
9000 cases of arthritis
8000 cases of carpal tunnel
etc etc

stats are made up but you get the idea..

so let me get this straight... The government SHOULD get involved to save baby's from a small operation, but they should NOT get involved when someone decides to kill a perfectly viable 26 week child that has their whole life ahead of them.




Ok. Got it!




.:thumbsup:thumbsup:1orglaugh:1orglaugh


.

this argument has NOTHING TO DO WITH HIV, its about fundamental human rights.

You do not have the right to tattoo your child, nor do you have the right to alter their body surgically.

This is spelled out clearly that this is about the childs right to decide and his inherent rights to be protected from mutiliation. Children are protected from abuse from parents, children are born with RIGHTS unto and SEPARATE from the parents. Think people.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_783191.html

bump for child mutilation

the funny thing about this all is, people think female circumcision is horrible yet doing it to males is perfectly fine.

Its all primitive rituals based on biblical jargon.

The people who do this have serious issues and have already denied their child the right to choose their own path in life.

Anyone who supports male circumcision supports female circumcision and its all the same shit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting

sick fucks, all of them.

know those man conversations, fuelled by beer and inhibition?

you know what happens when the awkward conversation comes out when they bitch about 'not getting off when their girls give em head'?

i call them gay and then look at the floor.

i know what the problem is, they probably don't. i know they're probably circumcised and probably not gay.

fetus != baby

would imagine the though process is that while the fetus is inside the mother , the mother makes the choice because the fetus is part of her.. once the fetus is born , it is now its own individual.

That thought always worked for me until I started meeting children that my wife works with that were born VERY premature, are now 6 years old, and realize that they could have been legally aborted at the point when they were actually delivered prematurely, and thereby been deprived of their chance at life. Just because they could have been called a "fetus", I realized, did not make them any less human beings with rights. I think that doesn't apply in the first trimester, but after that, I think you're killing a kid.

So I find it interesting that in a City that is all for legal late term abortion, they are going to get into this issue.

In fact, most curcumsicion is done within the first week, so I guess if the child is delivered late, and they do the operation in the womb, then THAT would be ok, since it doesn't have rights.


.:2 cents:

k now lets get back to facts not hating on San Franciso lol

http://www.economist.com/node/187128...12852&fsrc=rss

I sooo hope eventually we see a nationwide ban on this religious practice. They have mutilated enough children in the name of their books.

People seem to forget we at one time did female circumsisions in this country and it was too banned, males will be next.

You wanna do that stuff>? Israel will more than welcome you, as will the Vatican - fucking sickos.

BS numbers. I talked about this issue with old school doctor, who is jewish btw, and he said it makes no difference.

This is the photo used in the CBS article on the circumcision ban!

http://i.imgur.com/1SOEf.jpg

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_1...-10391704.html