[Rudder]

circumcision vastly diminishes the chance of infecting women with the human papillomavirus that causes cervical cancer, studies suggest that circumcision also helps guard against the transmission of the HIV virus. In both cases, cells on the inside of the male foreskin are implicated in spreading the virus. But if the foreskin is removed, a source of infection is also removed.

[driftdiver]

Its not about facts or safety. Its about condemning the cultural norms.

[cizinec]

If you look at all the studies on the subject you will see it does far more harm than good.

However, banning it is stupid. Those doing it for religious purposes should not (and cannot) be banned.

[thecabal]

Just a wild guess, but I don't think that SF cares too much about whether men might infect women with HIV.

Oh, and keep your laws off my body! (except for telling me what I can smoke, eat, drink...)

[MrEdd]

The ban is not about health.

It is about keeping Muslims (the homosexual movements dangerous ally against JudeoChristian culture) out of San Francisco. They are dangerous to homosexuals who go after older prey.

[Interrogator]

If God didn’t want us to have foreskins then we wouldn’t be born with them.

[momtothree]

We are truly a country of stupid rules and control. Circumcision should be a parental option or a religious one period. On a side note, when Mom was a nurse, she remembered on young boy of 19 who had it done. From my understanding, he felt “different” being an athlete and looking “different”. As an adult, the procedure is painful. It is also far more complicated than what newborns go through.

[Pilated]

According to my dad who didn't have it done until a very real health risk at the age of 64, it's was pure hell healing afterwards and he would have preferred it at the tender young age of being a new born. So even if you don't have it done at a young age - you still might HAVE to have it done later in life - if you want to live.