Skip to comments.San Franciscans to vote on controversial male circumcision ban in November
Posted on 05/18/2011 1:51:20 PM PDT by Beaten Valve
San Francisco voters in November will be asked to weigh in on what was until now a private family matter: male circumcision.
City elections officials confirmed Wednesday that an initiative that would ban the circumcision of males younger than 18 in San Francisco has received enough signatures to appear on the ballot. The practice would become a misdemeanor.
Supporters of the ban say male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation that should not be forced on a young child.
But opponents say such claims are alarmingly misleading, and call the proposal a clear violation of constitutionally protected religious freedoms.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I suppose this means that San franers are pulling in the welcome mat for Jews.
San Fransicko has long ago turned hostile to Judeo-Christian culture. This would only be one more nail in their coffin. Once the Jews leave, SF won’t last long before social destruction hits critical level.
Unlike abortion, circumcision doesn’t take an innocent life, yet abortion is OK with them but not circumcision.
Who would want to raise a kid in that hell hole anyway?
And also for the muzzies.
My mom’s a gentile but I am a jew.
So, if vaginal cosmetic surgery going to force the rich hippies to go to LA to get it done?
Both my sons were born in the Army hospital at Camp Zama, Japan in the 60s. The Army doctors would not let my wife go home until they were circumcized.
“Once the Jews leave, SF wont last long before social destruction hits critical level.”
So are you saying that the San Franciscan Jews are the ones that are holding the City together and if/when they leave, the City will fall into critical social ruin? Really?
Is this a joke?
So if a male is over 18 it’s OK to give up your foreskin ?
I can't see how it possibly meets "first do no harm" criteria when routinely performed on newborn boys rather than by medical necessity.
Parents do not own their children. If you have the right to mutilate your newborn boy like he's personal property, rather than a separate and unique individual human being, you have a right to kill it in the womb.
Oh stop the silly strawman nonsense. They own responsibility for their children, their child's health and well being. As for “genital mutilation” the claim is utterly unsupportable as regards the male. Moreover circumcision facilitates cleanliness.
I’d be more inclined to think the world was ending on the 21st if San fran was hit by a tsunami.
Homosexuals continuing to spam the world with their preference for “uncut” men.
Dunno. Maybe, but I had not thought it that directly. Or maybe a city already so broken that it can praise a number of perversions, and goes out of its way to ban a practice so strongly related to a religion so opposite to said perversion, is already close to trouble. Maybe neither, and it’s just a coincidence.
“...and goes out of its way to ban a practice so strongly related to a religion so opposite to said perversion, is already close to trouble.”
I don’t know why the issue of circumcision is so controversial there, but to suggest that failure to be circumcized will lead to medical maladies is preposterous...