Posted on 04/29/2011 1:32:38 PM PDT by Walter Scott Hudson
The practice of infant circumcision, which carries particular religious significance for Jews, may be outlawed later this year in San Fransisco. A ballot initiative is underway which would ask voters whether to prohibit the practice in November.
The effort is being taken seriously in light of last year's ban of toys in McDonald's Happy Meals. That move was enacted by the San Fransisco Board of Supervisors and provoked even leftist commentator Jon Stewart to call the city a "nanny state."The proposed new law would make it a misdemeanor to circumcise a person before they are 18-years-old.
"We don't come at this from a religious angle," Lloyd Schofield told the San Francisco Examiner. "We feel this is a very harmful thing. Parents are guardians. They are not owners of children. It's a felony to tattoo a child."
How about it? Should parents be able to circumcise their children? May San Fransisco rightfully restrict the practice? Is Schofield correct when he says parents are only guardians, and "not owners of children?"
Whether parents should circumcise their children, or get them tattooed, or do any of a million other things is dependent upon the answer to another question. In general, whose business is it to make these kinds of decisions? Who tells you, as an adult, whether you can get circumcised, or tattooed, or have your ears pierced? You get to make those decisions, because you own yourself. No one gave you your life and your body. Therefore, no one has a claim over what you do with it.
We all agree, I hope, that children are a special case. They cannot be allowed to fully direct their own lives, because they lack the requisite competence...
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
And as a "guardian" of my children, I feel freak faggotry is a very harmful thing.
It should be banned in public, or anywhere a child MAY be present.
You know it’s not about the infant’s rights, since they applaude late term abortion and have no problem mutilating an unborn fetus inside the womb. Now they prickle over, the practice of circumcision.
Last existing families get out before the big one.
Can’t say what’s really on my mind over there real motives...
You have to be a real moron to be on the Board of Stupidvisors.
You have to be a real moron to be on the Board of Stupidvisors.
Still, circumcision is nothing more than unnecessary surgery.
This is not as far out there as banning toys in Happy Meals, IMO.
As an interesting cultural note, I was talking to an Arab Druze from Lebanon. His father took him and his brother to Saudi Arabia during the revolution so they wouldn’t get hurt. While in Saudi, the father took him to a doctor who discovered he hadn’t been circumcised. He said the doctor went nuts and insisted on doing the operation on him and his brother right there in his office. The father, who was also uncircumcised, said nothing and got away without being circumcised himself.
So much for parental input in Saudi Arabia.
Sodomy is a greater health risk than circumcision.
The problem with that argument, if the left tries to use it, is female “circumcision” is actually a clitorectomy, with multiple organs removed and then a sewing up of the opening leaving only a tiny hole for urine to pass out. That does not compare to male circumcision.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.