San Francisco debates banning circumcision.

Cavehill Red

Millicent wrote: »

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.

That's why I said the epidemic rather than the virus itself.
It's understood the virus originated in Africa (likely due to bloodsharing with an ape) possibly as early as the thirties actually.
But the epidemic originated in the bathhouses in San Francisco, which is where it was first spotted by doctors and where it was first identified.

Mike 1972

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Circumcision at post-puberty age would be just as protective against HIV, but also significantly more painful for the subject, though.

And how exactly was this determined ?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

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

Rather dubious benefits really and not entirely risk free either.

Paparazzo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

HIV spread from the gay community within San Francisco and was first identified there.

You think that the ghays in san fran invented aids! Have you been reading www.godhatesfags.com? You do know the stuff they have on that site is bullshíte?

Millicent

Cavehill Red wrote: »

That's why I said the epidemic rather than the virus itself.
It's understood the virus originated in Africa (likely due to bloodsharing with an ape) possibly as early as the thirties actually.
But the epidemic originated in the bathhouses in San Francisco, which is where it was first spotted by doctors and where it was first identified.

From here, first cases:

A plasma sample taken in 1959 from an adult male living in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
A lymph node sample taken in 1960 from an adult female, also from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
HIV found in tissue samples from an American teenager who died in St. Louis in 1969.
HIV found in tissue samples from a Norwegian sailor who died around 1976.

Further reading also says New York and Los Angeles were the first to have patients presenting with HIV, not San Francisco. Please find a link for me that says it originated en masse in San Francisco bath houses.

Cavehill Red

Paparazzo wrote: »

You think that the ghays in san fran invented aids! Have you been reading www.godhatesfags.com? You do know the stuff they have on that site is bullshíte?

Oh, grow up!
I said the global epidemic originated there in the bathhouses, and was first identified there.
Those are all demonstrable facts, ffs.

Cavehill Red

Mike 1972 wrote: »

And how exactly was this determined ?

Yes, pain is a hard substance to measure, that's true.
But it does seem to be generally accepted by medics that a circumcision, like a sex-change operation, is best done earlier rather than later. In the former, for reasons of pain and recovery time, in the latter for both the above plus the hormonal element.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Rather dubious benefits really and not entirely risk free either.

I just think that it's probably not worth provoking the Jews and Muslims by making one of their more healthy religious practices illegal.
I'd be much keener to see SF banning Halal and Kosher meat to be honest.

Millicent

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Oh, grow up!
I said the global epidemic originated there in the bathhouses, and was first identified there.
Those are all demonstrable facts, ffs.

Demonstrate them. I've asked you to a couple of times.

Cavehill Red

Millicent wrote: »

From here, first cases

Indeed. But it seems it may have even been in existence some decades earlier. Sadly no tissue samples exist to test to be sure.

Millicent wrote: »

Further reading also says New York and Los Angeles were the first to have patients presenting with HIV, not San Francisco. Please find a link for me that says it originated en masse in San Francisco bath houses.

Google G.R.I.D. - Gay Related Immune Deficiency (the first name given by medics to AIDS.)

Mike 1972

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I said the global epidemic originated there in the bathhouses, and was first identified there..

You said earlier it originated in the 1930's

Just how many Gay bathhouses were there in 1930's San Francisco ?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'd be much keener to see SF banning Halal and Kosher meat to be honest.

On what grounds ?

Hogzy

Jesus theyll be banning the PKU test next because it hurts the babies.

Im circumcised and i am happy I am. Your less likely to get some infection, its cleaner and it looks cleaner for the ladies.

I dont get why people want to ban it. Its gain far outweighs the drawbacks.

Cavehill Red

Millicent wrote: »

Demonstrate them. I've asked you to a couple of times.

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Books/lbb/x590.htm

First identified in San Francisco and New York. But the work to identify the virus was done in San Francisco and in Paris.

gizmo555

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I just think that it's probably not worth provoking the Jews and Muslims by making one of their more healthy religious practices illegal.
I'd be much keener to see SF banning Halal and Kosher meat to be honest.

Healthy? It wasn't too healthy for Callis Osaghae, a four week old Irish boy who died in Waterford in 2003 as a result of a botched circumcision.

Ectoplasm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Oh, grow up!
I said the global epidemic originated there in the bathhouses, and was first identified there.
Those are all demonstrable facts, ffs.

And yet you've completely failed to demonstrate those "facts" :rolleyes:

Cavehill Red

Mike 1972 wrote: »

You said earlier it originated in the 1930's

Just how many Gay bathhouses were there in 1930's San Francisco ?

First believed to have been contracted by man in Africa from apes in the thirties, to be clear.
This cannot be proven because no testable tissue exists from the suspected cases.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

On what grounds ?

On the grounds of needless cruelty to animals and breach of US and EU animal welfare legislation.

Cavehill Red

gizmo555 wrote: »

Healthy? It wasn't too healthy for Callis Osaghae, a four week old Irish boy who died in Waterford in 2003 as a result of a botched circumcision.

And that's what happens when you get witch doctors to perform medical procedures.

Mike 1972

Cavehill Red wrote: »

On the grounds of needless cruelty to animals and breach of US and EU animal welfare legislation.

From a guy who endorses the mutilation of babies genitals ?

JohnK

Hogzy wrote: »

I dont get why people want to ban it. Its gain far outweighs the drawbacks.

Well if its so great let people decide to get it done themselves and dont force it on children.

Millicent

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Indeed. But it seems it may have even been in existence some decades earlier. Sadly no tissue samples exist to test to be sure.



Google G.R.I.D. - Gay Related Immune Deficiency (the first name given by medics to AIDS.)

Googled. It's Wiki but it's midnight and I'm tired (I'm old!). Again, Southern California and New York City. Very quickly renamed to AIDs to avoid the misconception as women were presenting also with the disease and many Haitians. Another link here says that:

By February, 1983, 1,000 cases of AIDS had been reported in the U.S. It had now been named, because it didn't have a name up until 1982, and it was increasing rapidly, and it was appearing in limited populations, particularly homosexual men.

In other words, by 1983, it had been shown that AIDS was occurring in people who were sharing needles--recreational drug users. It had been shown in infants of people at risk for AIDS. It was a little early for transmission by blood transfusion, although that was beginning to be known. And there were certain other aspects of it which made it look like an infectious disease.

125 of those cases were in San Francisco. While still a sizeable proportion, it's disingenuous to say that outbreaks are down to the gay community in San Francisco. Heterosexuals, IV drug users and blood transfusion patients were identified quite quickly after that initial "Gay Related Immune Deficiency" titling, hence the reason for the proposed name change in 1982.

Cavehill Red

EMF2010 wrote: »

And yet you've completely failed to demonstrate those "facts" :rolleyes:

Read And the Band Played On.

Even better, watch the movie.

Cavehill Red

Mike 1972 wrote: »

From a guy who endorses the mutilation of babies genitals ?

I'm not endorsing or advocating anything. Freedom for all to do or not as they wish.
But mutilation is not an accurate word for male circumcision, in my opinion.

gizmo555

Cavehill Red wrote: »

And that's what happens when you get witch doctors to perform medical procedures.

What medical qualifications does the typical rabbi have? Or do you include them in the witch doctor category?

The fact is that circumcision is not risk free under any circumstances no matter who does it. Where there is no genuine medical reason for performing it, it is IMO child abuse.

c_man

Ever see the Penn & Teller episode on this? *crosses legs*


I'm against this mutilation. I suppose I'm just a weirdo when it comes to not wanting to inflict horrible pain on infants.

Mike 1972

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm not endorsing or advocating anything. Freedom for all to do or not as they wish.

Kinda hard to ask a baby if they want to be circumcised ?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

But mutilation is not an accurate word for male circumcision.

It is when we are talking about its application to infants/children when not medically necessary.

Cavehill Red

gizmo555 wrote: »

What medical qualifications does the typical rabbi have? Or do you include them in the witch doctor category?

If they're not qualified medics, they're witch doctors.

gizmo555 wrote: »

The fact is that circumcision is not risk free under any circumstances no matter who does it. Where there is no genuine medical reason for performing it, it is IMO child abuse.

It's a very minor operation. No operation is entirely risk-free. You can die from having your tonsils out or your ingrown toenail clipped too, but it's not very likely.
The operation has health benefits and isn't a big deal (to medics or to me.)
It is a big deal for certain religions, though. I'm not into constricting their rights in that regard. Bear in mind, this operation remains standard procedure in America for religious and non-religious alike. In that context, maybe it should become opt-in rather than opt-out, then everyone, religious and non-religious, might be happy.

krudler

Its a tough one to call, my exes brother had to be circumcised when he was 12, now thats agony he'll remember forever, the recovery part. I had it done as an baby, also for medical reasons (i think, never really asked my parents about it tbh although I must do) and have no memory of the pain of it even though its probably the most excruciating thing I'll experience in my life.

so in that sense, better to do it when the guy wont ever remember it than do it as an adult when the pain will be very real and remembered forever. I dont have a problem with it, have never had any complaints from the ladies who all seem to prefer it, so I have a biased opinion on it, but I still dont fully agree with doing it as a cosmetic thing, but its one of those things that may be worse if needed in later life so I dunno.

krudler

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Read And the Band Played On.

Even better, watch the movie.

Great movie that, was only watching it a few weeks ago, phenomenal cast for a made for tv movie.

Mike 1972

Cavehill Red wrote: »

is a big deal for certain religions, though. I'm not into constricting their rights in that regard.

You come across as very big into the "rights" of religions yet you also deride them as "witch doctors" ? A bit of consistency wouldnt go amiss !

Cavehill Red

Mike 1972 wrote: »

You come across as very big into the "rights" of religions yet you also deride them as "witch doctors" ? A bit of consistency wouldnt go amiss !

I'm into the rights of human beings. Some of them happen to be religious.
Me, I'm an atheist buddhist. But that teaches me to not judge others on the basis of their (perhaps errant) belief systems.
Where those belief systems clash with human rights, such as FGM, or indeed the indoctrination of children into religious beliefs at a young age, I'm opposed.
But circumcision doesn't seem like a big deal to me. It's a relatively minor operation with some potential health benefits.
If some religious people want to go it with their kids, it's not the worst thing in the world.

Paparazzo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Oh, grow up!
I said the global epidemic originated there in the bathhouses, and was first identified there.
Those are all demonstrable facts, ffs.

Well, you actually said:

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.

So I was right before you corrected yourself. Apology accepted.

Anyway, back to the topic. 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?

Millicent

goose2005 wrote: »

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

Not to nitpick but FGM and male circumcision are quite different. That's not to say I agree with forcing circumcision on either gender when they're too young to choose, just that the outrage against female genital mutilation relates to the (usually) complete loss of sensation and the absence of any medical reasoning for it. That's why the debate seems more skewed when it comes to male circumcision -- there is a hygiene argument for it.

Just to emphasise, I am not in any way an advocate of male circumcision outside of medical grounds.

Cavehill Red

Paparazzo wrote: »

Well, you actually said:

So I was right before you corrected yourself. Apology accepted.

Anyway, back to the topic. 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?

I don't recall apologising for telling the truth. The epidemic was first identified in the bathhouses of San Francisco. The virus was first identified elsewhere.
But that's how epidemics work. SARS originated somewhere in rural China, but the epicentre of the epidemic was Hong Kong, to take a more recent example.
As I already said, I don't mind whether people are circumcised or not. It's not up to me, and I wouldn't want it to be up to me.
I just find it ironic that San Francisco of all places is looking to ban it.

Cavehill Red

Millicent wrote: »

Not to nitpick but FGM and male circumcision are quite different. That's not to say I agree with forcing circumcision on either gender when they're too young to choose, just that the outrage against female genital mutilation relates to the (usually) complete loss of sensation and the absence of any medical reasoning for it. That's why the debate seems more skewed when it comes to male circumcision -- there is a hygiene argument for it.

Just to emphasise, I am not in any way an advocate of male circumcision outside of medical grounds.

FGM is not circumcision. It's mutilation, plain and simple.
The two things are not remotely comparable. One maims a female so that she can never experience full sexual pleasure, while the other is a relatively benign operation which offers potential health and hygiene benefits.

Millicent

Cavehill Red wrote: »

FGM is not circumcision. It's mutilation, plain and simple.
The two things are not remotely comparable. One maims a female so that she can never experience full sexual pleasure, while the other is a relatively benign operation which offers potential health and hygiene benefits.

I... think you're agreeing with me but I'm double-checking anyway! While male circumcision is more benign, I don't think that negates the personal freedom aspect for the child.

Cavehill Red

Millicent wrote: »

I... think you're agreeing with me but I'm double-checking anyway! While male circumcision is more benign, I don't think that negates the personal freedom aspect for the child.

I'm agreeing with you on the difference between the two procedures.
I'm sort of in agreement with you on the personal freedom aspect for the kid. But there's a lot of things we don't give kids a choice about, often for good reasons.
We don't let them vote, drive, drink, etc. We give them vaccinations whether they want them or not.
I'm not comparing circumcision with any of the above. But it is a pretty benign procedure, especially when performed on younger kids, and it does have some hygiene and health benefits.
And some religions insist on it. If those religions were insisting on chopping off fingers, I'd be opposed. But this really is not a big deal, and banning it is going to cause a severe reaction among those religious communities there which isn't needed.

Millicent

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm agreeing with you on the difference between the two procedures.
I'm sort of in agreement with you on the personal freedom aspect for the kid. But there's a lot of things we don't give kids a choice about, often for good reasons.
We don't let them vote, drive, drink, etc. We give them vaccinations whether they want them or not.
I'm not comparing circumcision with any of the above. But it is a pretty benign procedure, especially when performed on younger kids, and it does have some hygiene and health benefits.
And some religions insist on it. If those religions were insisting on chopping off fingers, I'd be opposed. But this really is not a big deal, and banning it is going to cause a severe reaction among those religious communities there which isn't needed.

I get you and I figured that's what you were agreeing with. Tbh, I'm in two minds about it. I don't know that the hygiene and health benefits are worth the pain to the child but similarly to Krudler, I've seen what it does when people are older. I had a friend who had to have it done at around 18, IIRC, and he couldn't leave the house for a week with the pain and the constant urine links. So I don't know -- it's a hard one to call, really.

ETA: Would you be opposed to France's banning of the burqa? Not looking to troll but I can see a similar argument being used.

zenno

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?

this is mutilation of children simple as that. the human body is born with all things intact most of the time and for idiot religious people to dictate that you have to chop some part of the human anatomy off for the sake of religion is sick and twisted. thank zod most people know this. it is an evil act to dismember any part of a child/human. sometimes i think we as a human race are going backward not forward in the understanding of life education.

Cavehill Red

Millicent wrote: »

I get you and I figured that's what you were agreeing with. Tbh, I'm in two minds about it. I don't know that the hygiene and health benefits are worth the pain to the child but similarly to Kaiser, I've seen what it does when people are older. I had a friend who had to have it done at around 18, IIRC, and he couldn't leave the house for a week with the pain and the constant urine links. So I don't know -- it's a hard one to call, really.

ETA: Would you opposed to France's banning of the burqa? Not looking to troll but I can see a similar argument being used.

Yeah, I think if circumcision is to be done, it should be done early in life.
I do feel that a blanket ban is not the way forward here. They'd be better off moving towards our way of doing things, whereby a minority receive the op early for religious reasons and anyone else who gets it later does so because they need it for medical reasons.
In other words, an opt-in rather than an opt-out or a ban.
I'm all for the banning of the burqa, though. I think the French were right on that one. It's clearly intended to suppress women and it has security connotations.
A journalist smuggled themselves into Afghanistan in a burqa once. You cannot know who or what is beneath that inhumane swathe of cloth. To be facile, if someone in a burqa shoplifted from your shop, what description can you give the police?

krudler

zenno wrote: »

this is mutilation of children simple as that. the human body is born with all things intact most of the time and for idiot religious people to dictate that you have to chop some part of the human anatomy off for the sake of religion is sick and twisted. thank zod most people know this. it is an evil act to dismember any part of a child/human. sometimes i think we as a human race are going backward not forward in the understanding of life education.

Sh1t, I've been cutting my nails for years!

Mike 1972

Millicent wrote: »

ETA: Would you be opposed to France's banning of the burqa? Not looking to troll but I can see a similar argument being used.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm all for the banning of the burqa

If youse want to discuss Burkas can you please take it to any of the 4,692,381 AH Burka threads rather than sidelining this one .................

Cavehill Red

krudler wrote: »

Sh1t, I've been cutting my nails for years!

My ma used to cut my hair too!
What an evil Nazi she was and I never realised till now!

Millicent

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Yeah, I think if circumcision is to be done, it should be done early in life.
I do feel that a blanket ban is not the way forward here. They'd be better off moving towards our way of doing things, whereby a minority receive the op early for religious reasons and anyone else who gets it later does so because they need it for medical reasons.
In other words, an opt-in rather than an opt-out or a ban.
I'm all for the banning of the burqa, though. I think the French were right on that one. It's clearly intended to suppress women and it has security connotations.
A journalist smuggled themselves into Afghanistan in a burqa once. You cannot know who or what is beneath that inhumane swathe of cloth. To be facile, if someone in a burqa shoplifted from your shop, what description can you give the police?

But the same freedom of religion arguments exist for the burqa. While it is not religious in origins, it is an accepted part of their religious practice these days so it's a slippery slope to deny one religious freedom while arguing for another.

I think your solution (only for religious reasons or medical) is probably the way it will go. Will be interesting to watch though.

zenno

krudler wrote: »

Sh1t, I've been cutting my nails for years!

keep on topic.

Millicent

Mike 1972 wrote: »

If you want to discuss Burkas can you take it to any of the 4,692,381 AH Burka threads.rather than sidelining this one .................

That was me, sorry. Was using it to make a point on religious freedom.

strobe

Cavehill Red wrote: »

My ma used to cut my hair too!
What an evil Nazi she was and I never realised till now!

What kind of weird ass disease do you have that your hair didn't grow back and the cutting of it caused you extreme agony? You should contact the papers, I'm sure some doctor in the USA could cure you. Send me your details, I'll get the Herald to run the story. We can appeal for donations to the cause.

Cavehill Red

strobe wrote: »

What kind of weird ass disease do you have that you hair didn't grow back and the cutting of it caused you extreme agony? You should contact the papers, I'm sure some doctor in the USA could cure you. Send me your details, I'll get the Herald to run the story.

Extreme agony?
My mate was circumcised at the age of 33.
He didn't feel a thing. Even after the anaesthetic wore off, he was merely tender.

strobe

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Extreme agony?
My mate was circumcised at the age of 33.
He didn't feel a thing. Even after the anaesthetic wore off, he was merely tender.

I heard different.

Your anecdotal turn........

Cavehill Red

strobe wrote: »

I heard different.

Your anecdotal turn........

Just saying. It doesn't cause extreme agony. We've already heard from one lad on here circumcised as a kid who doesn't remember it at all.
Maybe you have a pal who suffered extreme agony. I've heard of people claim extreme agony from having tattoos or a wisdom tooth out.
My suggestion is they man up, tbh.

kylith

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Extreme agony?
My mate was circumcised at the age of 33.
He didn't feel a thing. Even after the anaesthetic wore off, he was merely tender.

Shame that they don't anaesthatise the newborn babies then, isn't it?

AnneElizabeth

What's up with women saying they think it's ok? What's wrong with you people! It's sick. It should be illegal everywhere. It serves no purpose for a start.
Any sane person would never inflict pain or want to mutilate a child. If a man wants to have it done himself later in life, fair enough, that's his business. However doing that to a child is wrong on so many levels.

I was talking to someone from Amnesty recently, they're having a big demonstration this month over Female Genital Mutilation, yet they have absolutely no stance on Male Genital Mutilation. It's the same thing in my book, and change if long overdue.
It's even weirder when people who aren't even Jewish do it..

strobe

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Just saying. It doesn't cause extreme agony. We've already heard from one lad on here circumcised as a kid who doesn't remember it at all.
Maybe you have a pal who suffered extreme agony. I've heard of people claim extreme agony from having tattoos or a wisdom tooth out.
My suggestion is they man up, tbh.

Yeah those pussy girly children. They should totally man up. Sissies! They probably play with dolls too. But Yahweh makes it ALL ok.