The SF Nazis are overreaching. Again. Not that they care about individual freedom.
Posted on 02/22/2011 3:07:48 PM PST by Lmo56
Self-described "civil rights advocates" say that a ballot proposition to ban circumcision is on track for gathering signatures, meaning that San Franciscans may vote on the measure this November.
The proposed law is being spearheaded by local resident Lloyd Schofield, according to the San Francisco Examiner.
It's part of a national push to end the procedure, which some say is steeped in tradition but poses risks and has little medical benefit. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association do not recommend routine circumcision.
Getting on the ballot is the easy part -- only about 7,000 signatures are required. Once it's there, advocates will have to convince voters that snipping off body parts is a bad idea.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcbayarea.com ...
What about the drawbacks of this cock-eyed law?
IMO, this is just more proof of the Pelosi-loving Liberal loons in San Francisco.
Wonderful. San Franciso can add “Smegma Capitol of the World” to its other wholesome drawing cards...
What is the medical benefit of circumcision?
See post #4 above, them google “smegma”.
Don't know - but, I RESENT the intrusion of anyone into my family's medical treatment ...
BTW: I wonder if someone could sue under Roe v. Wade, asserting that their child's medical treatment is up to the parent ???
Aw baloney. As long as people take showers there’s no such thing. On the other hand, this is SF we’re talking about.
In either case, why can’t these people stay out of other people’s business ? Seriously ? Yea yea I know... mental disorder.
They need to ban lobotomies, apparently half of SF has had one at an early age...
Circumcision? Heck no! Slicing up babies? SURE!!! Seems a little contradictory to me.
Cartoon I saw recently:
Moses peering up into heaven, holding the tablets of the Ten Commandments. “Now let me get this straight: The Arabs get all the oil, and we have to cut off the end of our what??!!
I’m curious as to what legal authority a city has to regulate medical practices?
There is a book called “None of These Diseases” that outlines all the benefits.
One of the few peers of my son who was not circumcised had to have the surgery at age 3(!!!) because his foreskin and penis grew at different rates.
Thank you, Mom and Dad, for having that done. My turtlenecked peers, when they mention it at all, do nothing but complain about it.
Could it be the SF faggot community against snipping any portion in order to enjoy more than less?
Just sayin’
Doesn’t make much sense, considering their proclivities.
They are pushing circumcision in Africa because it’s supposedly harder to get AIDS when you are circumcised.
I was circumsized...I couldn’t walk for a year!
Lemme see ... circumcision reduces the chances of contracting HIV from an infected partner when performing anal sex.
So the San Francisco officials WANT their gays to contract HIV???
This in a city where a sizable percentage of the population has had its genitals lopped or a member grafted on.
The hypocrisy has reached epic levels.
Can circumcision be done enutero? If so, just use their abortion argument against the regulation. (”My body my choice(sic)).
Hygiene and lowers chance of urinary tract infections among other things.
Amen! People can choose, or not choose to have their child circumsized. The city of San Francisco should have no say whatsoever in this.
Apparently San Francisco doesn’t believe in the First Amendment’s right to free exercise of one’s religion, a right to privacy or choice.
Aint this just a wee bit anti semitic ?
BWAHAHAHA!!!!!
Yes sir, on the front burner of must pass legislation ... someone or several someones have too much time on their hands.
I was ...ahem....did I miss out on something?
They’ve reached the “tipping” point I think.
Since male Muslims (as well as Jews) are required to be circumcised, this proposed law is anti-Sharia (islamophobic).
I had a little medical problem on my tool and was doing the Dr. Google thing and it led me to this blog where the circumcised and uncircumcised were sharing their experiences. I can say I am thankful I was in the uncircumcised camp.
Just Googling ... circumcision is always a Jewish requirement but not necessarily a Muslim requirement.
Probably hurt so bad you crapped in you diaper as well.
I am sure the Religion of Peace will disapprove. Will this law also protect muslim females against their unwanted circumcision?
I am sure the Religion of Peace will disapprove. Will this law also protect muslim females against their unwanted circumcision?
It's a fire hazard.
After that, breathing.
ML/NJ
They should include in the law that any circumcised male living within the SF city limits needs to have their circumcision reversed. That’ll teach them.
Fooey! I was waiting for the Muslim Brotherhood to declare jihad on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
“I was circumsized...I couldn’t walk for a year!”
Beware of drunk mohels.
The SF Nazis are overreaching. Again. Not that they care about individual freedom.
I know, I know— and I was incontinent and cried at the slightest thing.
San Franciscans want the boys they molest to be “uncut”.
So they do not recommend "routine circumcision", under what circumstances do they recommend it?
Glad Mom and Dad let me go natural. The chicks dig it too. When the hood goes down the girth increases and forms another ridge for her pleasure. The hood also maintains sensitivity and does not let Willy get roughed up. If you have been cut you don’t know what you’re missing.
Once born, they are a legal entity, a U.S. citizen - and the government has ‘a compelling interest’ in prosecuting you for damaging it.
Now I don't think circumcision is damaging, usually people want the kid to be like his father, or have health, aesthetic, or religious reasons for doing so - but I figure that is the argument these wackos are making - that it is akin to female genital mutilation - which is absolute rot.
I say this as someone who is quite happy with being intact.
+1 on that.
People say lots of things,some are true and some are not, and among the things not to be trusted the Vikings listed ‘talk in bed’.
But I have a return rate of well over 50% - gals I have broken up with who come back DTF.
When you have broken up with them, broken their heart, they told you off, cried their tears - and then they decide they should really hit you up for sex again - they dug it.
You are mistaken. I've had both and uncut is no big deal. It's what you do with it that counts.
You are mistaken. I've had both and uncut is no big deal. It's what you do with it that counts.
Maybe you could offer your penthouse forum submissions as an amicus brief.
Circumcision is an open-and-shut First Amendment right (”free exercise”) for observant Jews. “Free exercise” does not protect the right to conduct human sacrifices (or even to deny life-saving treatment to minor children of Christian Scientists), but supposed harm from infant circumcision is conjectural “junk science.”
Some would claim that if the First Amendment protects infant circumcision, it should also protect female genital mutilation (sometimes misleadingly euphemized as “female circumcision”). In answer:
(1) Female genital mutilation causes a lifetime of significant medical harm.
(a) but I wouldn’t object to a reduced procedure that left a small harmless scar.
(2) Female genital mutilation is a folk tradition in some cultures, rather than a requirement of a recognized religion like Islam.
Thank you for sharing that. Are you going to show us pictures next?
/extreme sarcasm
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.