San Francisco debates banning circumcision.

AnneElizabeth

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.

Since when does 33 years = 8 days old?
How can you compare the pain a newborn would feel to the pain a fully-grown man would feel?

Cavehill Red

strobe wrote: »

Yeah those pussy girly children. They should totally man up. Sissies!

Are they claiming they're suffering terrible agony? You got any quotes to stand that up?

Cavehill Red

AnneElizabeth wrote: »

Since when does 33 years = 8 days old?
How can you compare the pain a newborn would feel to the pain a fully-grown man would feel?

Circumcision is considered by medics to be more painful the older you are, especially post-puberty onwards.
The time to do it, if it ought to be done, is pre-puberty.

krudler

strobe wrote: »

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.

speaking as someone who's circumcised, I think I'd have a better knowledge of that extreme agony, as since I had it done as an infant and have absolutely no recollection of it, and never have had.

Cavehill Red

AnneElizabeth wrote: »

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.

Apart from hygiene and protecting you from HIV.

AnneElizabeth wrote: »

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.

The fact that you consider female genital mutilation to be the same as circumcision severely undermines your argument.

AnneElizabeth wrote: »

It's even weirder when people who aren't even Jewish do it..

Like Muslims, you mean?

krudler

AnneElizabeth wrote: »

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..

Except it does. you do realise men dont usually WANT to have it done right? its done for medical reasons, and the later in life it is the more painful it becomes. Like I already said a kid I know had it done at 12, he had constant problems and pain from the issues his foreskin was causing, and had he had it done at birth he never would have gone through any of that later on.

AnneElizabeth

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Apart from hygiene and protecting you from HIV.

Nothing protects you from HIV

You MUST be trolling. No body could be so ignorant. I'm not even going to bother trying to reason with you.

strobe

krudler wrote: »

speaking as someone who's circumcised, I think I'd have a better knowledge of that extreme agony, as since I had it done as an infant and have absolutely no recollection of it, and never have had.

So Krudler, If someone doesn't remember something, it's all good? "Roofie coctail?" All the cool kids are drinking them.....

Cavehill Red

AnneElizabeth wrote: »

Nothing protects you from HIV

You MUST be trolling. No body could be so ignorant. I'm not even going to bother trying to reason with you.

Read the thread.
Circumcision offer nine times the protection that non-circumcision does, and has been endorsed by the World Health Organisation as a method for combatting the spread of HIV in Africa.

krudler

AnneElizabeth wrote: »

Nothing protects you from HIV

You MUST be trolling. No body could be so ignorant. I'm not even going to bother trying to reason with you.

Guess we're all wasting our time using condoms then?

AnneElizabeth

krudler wrote: »

Guess we're all wasting our time using condoms then?

Yup, nothing offers 100% protection. Silly troll.

Paparazzo

I just had a look at wiki:

Both the WHO and CDC indicate that circumcision may not reduce HIV transmission from men to women, and that data is lacking for the transmission rate of men who engage in anal sex with a female partner.[11][13] The joint WHO/UNAIDS recommendation also notes that circumcision only provides partial protection from HIV and should never replace known methods of HIV prevention.[12]
A meta-analysis of data from fifteen observational studies of men who have sex with men found "insufficient evidence that male circumcision protects against HIV infection or other STIs

krudler

strobe wrote: »

So Krudler, If someone doesn't remember something, it's all good? "Roofie coctail?" All the cool kids are drinking them.....

Stop trying to flamebait, I've already said I dont particularly agree with doing it for purely cosmetic reasons, I had it done for medical ones not religious, but if the benefits of doing it as an infant outweight the pain you'll go through as an adult, both pre and post circumcision then its a better option to do it younger. I do think children should be anesthatised if possible but I dont know if doctors would give anaesthetic to an infant, but I'm not a doctor so I dont know.

Cavehill Red

Paparazzo wrote: »

I just had a look at wiki:

On health issues, I tend to prefer WHO to WIKI.
But I guess I'm funny that way.

Wibbs

krudler wrote: »

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

Your nails grow back. Your foreskin never will. The hygiene argument is bogus. The HIV argument is up in the air considering who many of the proponents of the studies. If you look at rates of HIV in countries with different rates of circumcision the stats are quite a bit different. EG HIV rates in the US are much higher than in Europe. Other studies suggest that cut men are more likely to engage in sexual practices that may increase the chances of transmission(down to lesser feeling in the cut willy). They're also more likely to suffer from premature shooting or difficulty in shooting. To reduce urinary infections in boys? Well girls get more than boys and are we suggesting lopping off bits of them? No and damn right too.

The "oh I ike the look of it" argument is incredibly bogus. May as well tell women with more extensive labia to have that removed for aesthetic reasons. Eh no. If a woman suggested to me she preferred it lopped off I'd retort with "yea well that's nice love, I'd prefer bigger boobs and a smaller arse, so could you see a surgeon please" Yea that would be acceptable. Not.

Function? Well the foreskin evolved for a reason, otherwise we wouldnt have one. It has a protective effect for a start. Now if a guy has a non functioning willy cos of the foreskin, then removal will naturally make him feel its a better bet. very very few men with a functioning one would consider its removal. The foreskin itself is full of nerve endings and it protects the inner head. Ask any uncut guy to walk down the street with it retracted. Watch him grimace, yet the cut guys reckon they've not lost out on sensitivity?

Religious? eff off with your magical thinking. Does your God require upgrades cos he screwed up the original design plan? Secondly the earlier Jews didn't remove the whole thing. That only started as Jews were passing for Gentiles and the religious nutters were massively against that. The Muslims just added that notion when their religion evolved from a mish mash of Judeo Christian ideas(it was just the one that caught on. there were others).

The "tradition" notion. The oh I had it done so my son should. Again go away you primitive.

While FGM is more physically barbaric, the reasons for male circumcision are almost identical and equally justified. Look at the muppets who perform FGM they give reasons such as religious duty, it looks better, it reduces nervous sexual energy(the victorians loooved male circumcision to reduce ****, hence it was so fashionable) and its tradition and I had it done. Sound familiar?



For actual medical reasons I say fine, as a blanket practice for newborns no. It's fashion masquerading as medicine and little else.

krudler

AnneElizabeth wrote: »

Yup, nothing offers 100% protection. Silly troll.

Did you actually just say condoms are a waste of time?

and you're calling me a troll? brilliant.

krudler

Wibbs wrote: »

Your nails grow back. Your foreskin never will.

That was an AH answer for a serious topic, anyway with all the tugging at it I've done over the years it amazing it hasnt grown back by now :pac:

I do agree it shouldnt be a blanket decision, if there was a way of telling someone would have foreskin issues later in life then fine, do it, but as a just in case is a bit extreme.

strobe

krudler wrote: »

Stop trying to flamebait, I've already said I dont particularly agree with doing it for purely cosmetic reasons, I had it done for medical ones not religious, but if the benefits of doing it as an infant outweight the pain you'll go through as an adult, both pre and post circumcision then its a better option to do it younger. I do think children should be anesthatised if possible but I dont know if doctors would give anaesthetic to an infant, but I'm not a doctor so I dont know.

Man, I wasn't trying to 'flamebait' (i think I know what that means). I was just addressing the post you made, and employing an analogy....I fukkin love analogies. I haven't read the whole thread, it's a bigun after all. But I'd readily contest the statement that circumcising children is a positive in terms of the pain they will suffer then versus the possible pain they are very unlikely to suffer in later life. To me that is equivalent to saying, "why not cut babies tonsils out before they have a chance to get tonsilitus(sc)" but much much worse. I hope no one will disagree it is a much more personal thing in the case of circumcision.

Rabble Rabble

Millicent wrote: »

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

It is absolutely unbelievable that the fact that the global AIDs epidemic started in San Francisco is not known. Utterly remarkable. Fantastically Orwellian.

alwaysadub

My little nephew just got told the other day he has to have it done

It's for medical reasons,and a total last resort-even the doctor didnt want to do it unless at all necessary.
I feel so sorry for him, he's been bawling his eyes out talking about having to get the top of his willy cut off.

Paparazzo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

On health issues, I tend to prefer WHO to WIKI.
But I guess I'm funny that way.

You mean the report that doesn't mention transmission from men to men, just man to woman? Maybe if you read wiki and the linked reports to Jama you would see the conclusion:

Pooled analyses of available observational studies of MSM (men having sex with men) revealed insufficient evidence that male circumcision protects against HIV infection or other STIs

Apology accepted

zenno

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Circumcision is considered by medics to be more painful the older you are, especially post-puberty onwards.
The time to do it, if it ought to be done, is pre-puberty.

look...Circumcision is not natural, the skin is there for a reason. and to do this to a child that is only after coming into the world and is trying to understand what is going on around him and then to be butchered in this way is INSANE why the fcuk do people insanely do these things ?. just leave nature and the natural birth process alone as it should be. next thing they will be doing is cutting off childrens fingertips because they are too pink . ffs grow up people and get a life. religion is not correct it is far from it. religions of the world boil down to the same thing that there is a god. but there is no god if there was this torture and barbaric acts would be long gone. no wonder the populace of the world are killing and torturing each other...all because of the bloody sick twisted religious ceremonies.

strobe

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

It is absolutely unbelievable that the fact that the global AIDs epidemic started in San Francisco is not known. Utterly remarkable. Fantastically Orwellian.

I might be mistaking you for some one else....but aren't you the guy that believes AIDS has nothing to do with HIV?

scientific1982

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.

Bull****. I got it done at 8, im 28 now and can still remember how painful it was. I dont have a low pain threshold either.

Rabble Rabble

strobe wrote: »

I might be mistaking you for some one else....but aren't you the guy that believes AIDS has nothing to do with HIV?

No. AIDS is certainly caused by HIV. Are you the guy who believes that the moon is made of cheese?

( The AIDS has nothing to do with HIV may also be a product of San Francisco gay rights movement, I know for a fact it was popular there, but not that it originated there).

In the Eighties it was clear that AIDS was, mainly in the West, a homosexual decease. It original name was GRIDS. G for Gay.The locus was found to be, once they worked out what was happening, the West Coast of the US, related to the unprotected sex ( understandalbe if people cant get pregnant and are not aware of AIDS) and the frequency of sexual partners - which is a major vector of the disease.

Since then the "first" AIDS patient has been pushed back to 1959, but since the disease was not named until it became common in America, the cause of his symptoms was "discovered" not then, but much later.

There seems to have been another vector in Africa, amongst heterosexuals. It has never been a major heterosexual disease in the West. Clearly San Francisco's lifestyle has something to do with the number of sexual diseases originating, or concentrating, there.

But this ADIS stuff is off topic. Circumcision is a GOOD THING. You look better. Cleaner. Retraction is easier ( and at least 5-10% of the normal population have problems) and last longer. All that for a small bit of flesh removed when a baby.

The cry babying about mutilation is a whiny male response to women's rights. If they are mutilated if circumcised then we are when we are circumcised. But its not really the same thing. FGM is like cutting off your dick.

We do other mutilations when young, slashing the umbilical cord so it doesn't stick out, for one. This is not big deal, and it is a good thing.

Lirange

I've no problem with it as long as local anesthesia is applied and in places like America that's becoming more common.

krudler

zenno wrote: »

look...Circumcision is not natural, the skin is there for a reason. and to do this to a child that is only after coming into the world and is trying to understand what is going on around him and then to be butchered in this way is INSANE why the fcuk do people insanely do these things ?. just leave nature and the natural birth process alone as it should be. next thing they will be doing is cutting off childrens fingertips because they are too pink . ffs grow up people and get a life. religion is not correct it is far from it. religions of the world boil down to the same thing that there is a god. but there is no god if there was this torture and barbaric acts would be long gone. no wonder the populace of the world are killing and torturing each other...all because of the bloody sick twisted religious ceremonies.

So women shouldnt have medication to dull the pain of childbirth? thats part of the birth process as well.

strobe

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

No. Are you the guy who believes that the moon is made of cheese?

( The AIDS has nothing to do with HIV may also be a product of San Francisco gay rights movement, I know for a fact it was popular there, but not that it originated there).

Wait....was that a "No, but yes totally" answer?

It's hard to know when you are serious, if you ever are.....


I really really can't tell....

zenno

krudler wrote: »

So women shouldnt have medication to dull the pain of childbirth? thats part of the birth process as well.

what the hell are you talking about ???? what has that got to do with this topic? what is the matter with some people.

in that what i mean is don't be cutting off parts of the child...now do you get it. I never said anything to do with as you say...(So women shouldnt have medication to dull the pain of childbirth) that will be maybe for a different topic.

Mike 1972

strobe wrote: »

WIt's hard to know when you are serious, if you ever are.....

I really really can't tell....

The username might be a clue ?

philologos

I can guarantee you that this won't happen. Just think about the communities this will most affect and whether or not it will be considered "politically correct" by the media.

krudler

zenno wrote: »

what the hell are you talking about ???? what has that got to do with this topic? what is the matter with some people.

in that what i mean is don't be cutting off parts of the child...now do you get it.

you said leave nature as it is along with the birth process, well its not natural to give an epidural to a woman, its "natural" for her to go through excruciating pain which is part of the birth process isnt it?

Wolflikeme

krudler wrote: »

Did you actually just say condoms are a waste of time?

and you're calling me a troll? brilliant.

Not what she said at all.

Ever read the small print on a pack of rubbers?! If they didn't stipulate they don't guarantee 100% protection they'd be getting sued all over the shop.

strobe

Jakkass wrote: »

I can guarantee you that this won't happen. Just think about the communities this will most affect and whether or not it will be considered "politically correct" by the media.

Ahh the voice of reason appears.........wait..... Jakkass?

No I agree, probably for wholly different reasons....would be political suicide in the USA.

krudler

Wolflikeme wrote: »

Not what she said at all.

Ever read the small print on a pack of rubbers?! If they didn't stipulate they don't guarantee 100% protection they'd be getting sued all over the shop.

Obviously condoms dont offer 100% protection against HIV, but they're better than nothing. I asked if we were wasting our time wearing them, and her reply was "Yup", which is beyond stupid.

zenno

I have made my point and there is nothing more i will say about it as i'm done here. but before i go i will say' if a child has a serious problem regarding his skin on top and it is medically sure that there is a problem then if the doctor suggests it is a matter of urgency to remove it then thats ok because of the medical implications that might occur.

but in no way will i listen to barbaric crap from religious people or the catholic church in the mass dismemberment of childrens skin in any shape or form. it's disgusting, unetical, and downright religious evil sacrificial torture and should be stopped.

it is typical in america that inner intelligence is a non existant thing. but not all americans are braindead in their outlook on this problem. more and more americans by statistics are realising that this method in butchery on young children is wrong.

Agonist

All kinds of downright weird things are done in the name of religion but I really don't understand the thinking behind the cultural reason that "I want my boy to look like me". Isn't it a bit strange to compare adult genitals to a newborn babies' for a start?

The only real life comparison I've heard about the difference from a woman's perspective is a girl who was attempting to pleasure a man with her hand and he winced because he had no layer of "silky skin" reducing the friction and he demanded lube. She was a bit queasy about how alien the situation was, being extensively familiar with the undoctored member. Interesting convo.

Wibbs

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

There seems to have been another vector in Africa, amongst heterosexuals. It has never been a major heterosexual disease in the West.

That's an interesting one alright RR. I remember when the warnings really kicked off back in the 80's. Lots of ads on the telly voiceover by John Hurt for gravitas, showing black icebergs and the like warning of the epidemic to come. And yet it didn't. Access to better health care was a major factor as was just a generally better standard of health, but something else seems to be going on.

One theory I read was that areas where people were exposed to the black death in the past proffered immunity against the AIDS virus, though plague is bacterial there may be something to that. Europeans may just be "lucky" on that score. From the middle ages on(and before) we've had successive waves of murderous infectious diseases damn near every single year at one point. The annals describe them all as "plague", but there seemed to be different infectious agents going on symptoms reported. Things like sweating sickness which nearly killed anne boleyn before oul Henry got the chance. Some sound like hemorrhagic fever like ebola, one killed only humans and horses for some reason. If you're of European stock you're ancestors have been really through the mill and have survived a whole range of epidemics and you're the result. Look what happened when Europeans went to the New world and 2/3rds of the locals died out because of the bag of disease we brought with us. Measles alone killed them in droves. It still happens today where remote amazonian tribal types are decimated becaue some white fella has a sniffle.

IIRC with HIV it may be down to two genes that may have come from that exposure, if you had one you required a very large viral load to get infected, if you had both it was almost impossible to catch it. I do recall a couple of Europeans studied who were immune to HIV. One guy was incredibly brave. His partner had died of it and he wanted to help research the disease as a tribute to him and agreed to be infected with a massive viral load and he didn't catch it.

While Africa, especially sub saharan Africa has many many disease agents, they were off the beaten track by comparison to Europe and the ME. Locals have more immunity to things like malaria compared to Europeans, but maybe less in the case of HIV.

The other aspect is cultural which is a bit of a hot potato. There are African cultures with very low rates of the illness(cut and uncut), largely down to far fewer sexual partners. In some African cultures the amount of sexual partners both men and women have is very large. That and use of sex workers. Other cultural aspects are some where the men prefer "dry" sex which increases the risk of tearing etc. The refusal to wear condoms because of some macho notions. The lack of sexual equality etc.

Ofc they should ban it, it's butchery.

Wibbs

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Circumcision is a GOOD THING.

This is where I disagree.

You look better.

So a dry keretinised glans which should be moist and the removal of a functioning part of the penis where the scar can be seen looks better? That's frankly daft. And where did this notion of it looking better come from? Certainly not classical notions of beauty. Both the Greeks and Romans considered a cut penis mutilated and barbaric, hence its not required in Christianity, even though it's essentially a Jewish religion(one of the biggest debates of the early church was on this matter and they knew the greeks and romans would reject the new faith in droves if this was pushed). The fashion thing comes to us from Victorians and they did it as a way to stop "self pollution". BTW FGM nutters claim the same looking better of their practice.

Cleaner.

Bogus again and again used as a reason by FGM types.

Retraction is easier ( and at least 5-10% of the normal population have problems)

Eh you can't retract what you do not have. If a guy can retract anything he didn't get much of a snip job. As for the percentage that have problems, how many can be solved by non surgical methods? In any case you don't remove people appendix at birth just because a percentage have problems. What about complications arising from the procedure itself? Too tight a cut causing bending, even pain. In rare cases the penis itself was lost.

and last longer.

Why? Because it's less sensitive and as you age it becomes moreso. Plus more cut men suffer from the opposite, firing too fast as the foreskin plays a part in the phases of arousal and trigger of orgasm. Without those cues, a guy can have problems with being too quick or not coming at all without vigorous stimulation.

All that for a small bit of flesh removed when a baby.

Its not a small bit of flesh in an adult male. It makes up a large proportion of the tissue of the penis and a large proportion of the sensory nerves of the penis. If you also lost your frenulum(banjo and surrounding area) well you've lost the most sensitive part of all. It is not just a piece of flesh, regardless of ones stance on its removal.

The cry babying about mutilation is a whiny male response to women's rights. If they are mutilated if circumcised then we are when we are circumcised. But its not really the same thing. FGM is like cutting off your dick.

Bollocks of an argument with respect. What about the less invasive forms of FGM, where they just remove some of the labia and the clitoral hood(woman's foreskin). Would that be alright in your argument if baby girls vulvas were "tidied up" to match fashion at birth for religious and cultural reasons(even bogus medical reasons as some adult women have discomfort from protruding labia)? I doubt it, but its alright for boys?

We do other mutilations when young, slashing the umbilical cord so it doesn't stick out, for one. This is not big deal, and it is a good thing.

Slashing? Eh hello. The cord if left alone will seal up, wither and drop off. Completely different thing. The umbilical cord has no, that zero function beyond birth and absolutely none in adulthood. Apples and oranges.

Millicent

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

It is absolutely unbelievable that the fact that the global AIDs epidemic started in San Francisco is not known. Utterly remarkable. Fantastically Orwellian.

Good job ignoring every bit of evidence I've offered to the contrary. Fantastic reading comprehension.

If you fancy proving that with, I dunno, a link as good as the CDC or a professor who studied the initial crisis in San Francisco (as I have bothered my arse to do) I'll consider listening to you. Otherwise, what you've written is the equivalent of your username.

Also, don't throw Orwell into the mix to make yourself sound more reasoned. Didn't work.

Terry

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

It is absolutely unbelievable that the fact that the global AIDs epidemic started in San Francisco is not known. Utterly remarkable. Fantastically Orwellian.

Heh.
A quick google tells me that about 25% of San Francisco's population is Jewish. Being reasonable, let's say that 90% of these men (about 100,000) are circumcised.
Google gave varying results for male curcucision stats. I didn't look into it too much, but 2/3rds seems to be the most prevalent stat.

So you are saying that circumcision can help prevent HIV/AIDS, but that the epidemic started in a city with 66% of the male population snipped, right?

That really does not compute.
Thanks, but I'll stick with condoms.

0.6% of the population of the U.S. has HIV/AIDS compared to 0.2% or the Irish population.

66% or the male population of the U.S. is circumcised compared to about 5% here. Once again, the statistics tell a different story.

Jakkass wrote: »

I can guarantee you that this won't happen. Just think about the communities this will most affect and whether or not it will be considered "politically correct" by the media.

25% Jewish, but that means 75% non-Jewish.

philologos

Terry wrote: »

25% Jewish, but that means 75% non-Jewish.

My point exactly. 25% is a sizeable minority which most people do not want to offend, particularly politicians. There is an increased backlash against anti-Muslim sentiment as well in much of the US media.

I.E - It will never happen.

noxqs

Mutilating babies genitals is wrong.

It's their body. Inflicting religious rituals upon an innocent child is wrong.

If they want to subscribe to a particular fantasy story when they are 18 and then get circumsized, then fair play.

Terry

Jakkass wrote: »

My point exactly. 25% is a sizeable minority which most people do not want to offend, particularly politicians. There is an increased backlash against anti-Muslim sentiment as well in much of the US media.

I.E - It will never happen.

I'm not sure that figure is exact. Like I said, it was just a quick google which brought me to some Jewish site. It said that there are 210,000 Jews in SF, but didn't cite any sources. Wiki puts the population of SF at 815,000, but doesn't menton the Jewish population.

wikipedia wrote:

Like many larger U.S. cities, San Francisco is a minority-majority city, as non-Hispanic whites comprise less than half of the population. The 2006–2008 American Community Survey estimated that 45.1% of the population was made up of non-Hispanic whites.[133] Asians of any nationality make up 31.3% of the population with those of Chinese birth or descent constituting the largest single ethnic group in San Francisco at about one-fifth of the population. Hispanics of any race make up 14.0% of the population. San Francisco's African American population has declined in recent decades, from 13.4% in 1970 to 7.3%.[133] The current percentage of African Americans in San Francisco is similar to that of the state of California;[133] conversely, the city's percentage of Hispanic residents is less than half of that of the state. Native San Franciscans form a relatively small percentage of the city's population: only 37.7% of its residents were born in California, while 25.2% were born in a different U.S. state. More than a third of city residents (35.6%) were born outside the United States.[133]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco#Demographics

I would imagine that the 45.1% of Non-Hispanic whites includes the Jewish population.
Wikipedia also says that about 40% of the city's private primary schools are Catholic, with 30% of the children attending private primary schools.

With the large Hispanic (primarily Catholic) and Asian populations, I can see this going through.

Then again, they are ****ing hippies.

philologos

Terry, honestly the accusations of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia will stop this in its tracks. The argument that 75% can dictate what the other 25% do if used in other contexts would be highly disagreeable on your part.

Terry

Jakkass wrote: »

Terry, honestly the accusations of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia will stop this in its tracks. The argument that 75% can dictate what the other 25% do if used in other contexts would be highly disagreeable on your part.

People can throw those accusations at me all they want, but I'll stand firm on my stance that this is a barbaric ritual.

This has very little to do with religion where the U.S. is concerned anyway. The Jewish and Islamic populations there are quite low, but circumcision is still practiced on ~66% of male children.

The U.S. constitution is supposedly secular (even if some of the politicians cite Genesis as an argument against climate change), so once again religion should not have any say in the law.

If you allow circumcision because of religious and/or cultural beliefs, then a similar argument can be made for FGM.

As for 75% of people deciding what the other 25% do, that's democracy.

Nodin

The fact is that the majority of Americans believe that circumcision is "healthy" and have done so for decades. As a result, its unlikely to spread in the short term, even if the 'hippies' do pass it in SF.

philologos

OK - I think your view is a little bit divorced from reality, particularly in the presence of AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre amongst other Jewish groups. Never mind the numerous Islamic activist groups that there are. If you think there wouldn't be any form of media backlash, or that the pressure wouldn't get too much for them to back down think again!

As for 75% and 25%. Taking the US as an example. If 78% claim to be Christians, is it acceptable for the US government to forbid the practice of any other religion, or indeed to reject that faith and become an atheist or agnostic? - Your logic, if correct would suggest that this should be the case.

Nodin

Terry wrote: »

..............
As for 75% of people deciding what the other 25% do, that's democracy.

Thats direct democracy. America, however, has its system designed to avoid that scenario, whereby theres a tyranny of the majority over the rights of minorities.