Skip to comments.Circumcision Ban to Appear on San Francisco Ballot
Posted on 05/18/2011 6:48:45 PM PDT by massmike
A group seeking to ban the circumcision of male children in San Francisco has succeeded in getting their controversial measure on the November ballot, meaning voters will be asked to weigh in on what until now has been a private family matter.
City elections officials confirmed Wednesday that the initiative had received enough signatures to appear on the ballot, getting more than 7,700 valid signatures from city residents. Initiatives must receive at least 7,168 signatures to qualify.
If the measure passes, circumcision would be prohibited among males under the age of 18. The practice would become a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail. There would be no religious exemptions.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
The worlds on fire and this and gay marriage is important
Even by liberal standards, this is insane because it falls under the alleged “penumbra” of privacy that Roe v Wade is based on.
Or is that the purpose? They pass this and then it is fought on the grounds that it is unconstitutional for the same reason that makes abortion legal.
Are you saying there are breeders in SaFo City? Who knew?
Anything involving the penis is the highest issue in San Francisco.
....so you can smoke pot, marry your boyfriend, walk down the street naked, ignore Obamacare, light “St Obama” candles -
But you can’t circumcise, smoke a cigarette, carry a “Palin for President” sign....
And they say America is in decline. I say they’re not paying their fair share. :)
I’m not sure why women should be allowed to determine this matter
No Jews allowed!
With no religious exemptions, this law would clearly be unconstitutional.
I swear, the only people Libs hate worse than the white male are Jews.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
I don’t think this is constitutional, but it will probably pass and have to be fought all the way to the Supreme Court.
I don’t think any sane people live in SF. I think just a bunch of burned out dopers, 60s hippies that never grew up and all the misfits seeking queer heaven.
SF looks like a zombie apocalypse too. Supposed great restaurants with hollow eyed skeletons delivering the food, Bleck!
What about us Rightists?
Hey, buddy. I got a tip for yah.
Have ‘m take a little off the top.
Nope...there are many laws against things like peyote for example, used in "religious" exercises. Jewish people would be allowed their rituals once the child was of age. Just don't mutilate a child....male or female
Another fact to consider is that the vast majority of infant circumcisions are done on Gentiles.
LOL! Penis obsession was actually the topic of tonight's new episode of South Park.
Establishing health laws restricting the anal gymnastics practiced by the @$$ pirates overrunning Pelosi World..well that would be an invasion of privacy and so unenlightened and politically incorrect. Harumph. But lets save those foreskins girls.
And, in case anyone has questions about “why” this is an issue specifically to San Fagcisco... well.... I just can’t go there without puking...
You have a point...
Circumcision has been shown to prevent HIV transmission during HETEROSEXUAL sex. It has been shown to NOT have the same protective effect during HOMOSEXUAL sex.
NOW do you understand why they want to outlaw it in SF and why they tried the same thing in Gay-Marriage-Massachusetts?
Homosexuals hate it when heterosexuals have an advantage over them, like, you know, procreation.
Hey, get series, cut it out, er off.
Circumcision does not prevent HIV transmission in any form of sex. Only abstinence and monogamy prevent HIV. The evidence for alleged health benefits of circumcision is pseudoscientific crap, just like that for anthropogenic global warming.
Well, there have been studies conducted that could certainly persuade one to believe that circumcision can prevent HIV transmission in hetereosexuals and not so in homosexuals. E.g.,
True or not, if homosexuals perceive it as true, then that would make sense as to why Gay Francisco would make this such a priority; though I tend to agree with the poster who said that homos just like the way uncut dicks look.
Gee whiz, being a queer must be next.
I thought it must have something to do with those tights.
The biggest practicers of genital mutilation, male and female, are Muslims and certain primitive African cultures. That ought to make you think. The New Testament actually preaches against circumcision.
I swear, every sane soul should leave that toilet behind.
It looks like Schofield found 7,700 other pricks in San Francisco to oppose male circumcision. It figures. He’s probably a cross-dressing male impersonator who wishes he had the right tools. Or he is a liberal Democrat? Am I being repdundant?
“Tallywhacker” - “Porky’s” (the first movie) or was it the second? (The principal said it).
The penumbra doesn't cover anyone with a Y chromosome.
In those cases, the state must show a “compelling interest” to overturn a religious objection. It’s hard to see what compelling interest an incorporation of the State of California has in this matter.
This is going to be a big waste of time and money to put this on the ballot. If it does pass, it’s going to be about a microsecond before it’s challenged by conservative Jewish groups. And if they win their challenge, then I don’t see how the courts can prevent individual parents from requesting the same procedure.
For the record, we did not have our boys circumcised. But it should be a family decision.
It isn’t a perfect comparison, but in both cases you’re chopping off an infant’s body part, without its consent, effectively making sex less pleasurable for the rest of its life.
I would not support a ban like this, it probably should be a family (and religious) decision, but I do argue against families making that choice.
Really? No compelling state interest? People are performing a painful and unnecessary surgical procedure on infants, without their consent, affecting them for the rest of their lives, for superstitious and aesthetic (i.e. self-centered) reasons. The state always has an interest in protecting children from abuse. That will be the argument, and I’m not sure I disagree with it.
That said, I wouldn’t support a ban like this. It should be a family decision. But I really don’t think non-Jewish parents (for instance) should consider it the “default” (the “health reasons” are bullshit in a first world country), or that a father should decide to circumcise just because he was.
To offer a personal testimonial: I’m circumcised. I was born (actually, in California) during an era when essentially all male babies born in hospitals were circumcised. I’m glad I’m circumcised. My wife is glad I’m circumcised. It’s probably a personal preference, and most of us will probably be happy with the way we are because that’s the way we are.
Is it just me or are some people hardcore drugees who are too stoned or high to think straight about what laws to propose? This is about as logical as the idea that tobacco be illegal while pot be legal
I posted that I would rather have an exception for Jews, and to eliminate routine infant circumcision for others by social stigma rather than by law. Most circumcisions are done by Drs. for bogus "health" reasons (really to make $), not by mohels for religious reasons.
Anyway, there are Jews already questioning the use of religious circumcision. And other practices which were once absolutely central to Jewish worship, like animal sacrifices, have already been abandoned.
In short...there were two villages. One village all the males were circ'd and in the other none....The incidence of HIV in the non circ'd men was much higher than with the other.
Actually was pretty interesting....
So I don't think it's bogus...Besides that...most of the hospitals I've worked at...it's a choice. And I highly doubt Drs. are making a killing on circ's.
But even if the State of California decided it had a compelling interest that it could defend -- very unlikely in this case because no public interest is involved -- it's very difficult to imagine ANY municipality that could justify it. Municipal authorities in most jurisdictions do not have a grant of this kind of authority: in this case it's not so much the compelling that's pertinent as it is the interest itself. An authority that runs parks and appoints dog catchers isn't competent (in both the original and modern sense) to make such determinations. By its past actions, clearly San Francisco has demonstrated it is not.
Thank God I don't live in California anymore, or in a state where they think this is the government's business.
The pervs want a penis they like.
2) Since when are newborn babies at risk for HIV (unless they caught it from their mothers)?
3) The propagandists for circ. have been cranking out studies like this for years. They used to claim the foreskin caused cervical cancer, till that was disproved. They claimed the foreskin caused penile cancer, although there are more deaths caused by botched circumcisions that by penile cancer. You have to read the history to learn that this surgery became standard in America because crackpots thought it would reduce sexual sensation and thereby discourage masturbation! Then it just became a matter of habit and ingrained stupidity.
4) Any ethical Dr. should know that unnecessary surgery is contradictory to the Hypocratic oath, and should refuse to perform it. Some of the leading opponents of routine circ. are Drs. and nurses. This surgery was performed for decades with no anesthesia, and I know women who heard their sons screaming from clear down the hallway. Any Dr. who did that, over and over, should have been drummed out of the profession, or at least shunned by any patient. Some Drs. are heroic, but the profession has its share of scumbags.
5) There are non-violent, non-surgical solutions for all the problems allegedly caused by lack of circumcision.
6) Whether you believe in creation, intelligent design, or pure evolution, the foreskin is there for a purpose, like almost every other part of the body. We are not talking about clipping fingernails here. The foreskin contains about 1/3 of all the skin area and nerve endings in the penis. The foreskin is designed to protect the penis and maintain maximum sensitivity. Now if some adult actually wants to have his removed, that's his business. If he wants to get himself castrated, that will probably really reduce his risk of HIV, penile cancer, etc. But arguments for infant circumcision are pseudo-scientific garbage.