In San Francisco you must accept the culture of others, as long as the others are the good others–ya know the gay-lesbo-socialist-anarchist types. They MUST be respected.
San Francisco residents may vote on a ballot measure next year that would outlaw circumcision.
The initiative, which requires 7,000 signatures before it can be added to next November’s ballot, would make it a misdemeanor to “circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the…genitals” of all minors, and would not make exceptions for religious reasons.
The decision to permanently remove a boy’s foreskin should not be made by parents, says Lloyd Shofield, the proposal’s author.
“People can practice whatever religion they want, but your religious practice ends with someone else’s body,” Schofield told CBS affiliate KCBS. “It’s a man’s body and…his body doesn’t belong to his culture, his government, his religion or even his parents. It’s his decision.”
On the upside, the fact that San Franciscans want to protect by law a blob of tissue may be “a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility.”
Or not. These people are crazy. You can kill a baby by law up until the moment it is born, and sometimes after, but you cannot circumcise it?
Easy solution. Mohels must learn to perform circumcision in utero. Blobs of tissue are never protected there. Then if SFO wants to save the foreskin, they must save the baby too.
December 24, 2010 at 3:55 pm
One thing SF has done right.
http://fisheaters.com/circumcision.html
http://www.catholicsagainstcircumcision.org/
December 24, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Essentially, they intend to try to ban Orthodox Judaism. I would think that the observant Jewish community is going to be up in arms over this.
December 24, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Now, they're forcing women to perform back alley circumcisions which are dangerous to everyone.
December 24, 2010 at 4:47 pm
No matter how you slice it, San Francisco is definetly NOT "religion friendly".
This latest stab at religious beliefs may be the unkindest cut of all.
December 24, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Piercings will be next, no doubt, right?!! No body piecing of any kind will be performed on infants and young children. It should NOT be the parent's decision to poke holes in their children's flesh and stick a piece of metal through it. No cultural exceptions allowed!!! Even the "cuteness" factor is to be ignored.
December 24, 2010 at 4:56 pm
This ordinance has zero chance of passing Constitutional muster. Free exercise of religion and all. First it has to pass, which, given it's San Francisco, may be a given. But I just don't see how this is legal, even in the P.R.C. (People's Republic of California).
And Matthew, how soon will California pass a law banning transporting minors across municipal or state lines for the purpose of procuring a circumcision?
December 24, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Muslims also circumcise, and exclusively in childhood.
December 25, 2010 at 12:02 am
Dang SF, you're giving the rest of us Californian's a bad name. Why don't you break off of CA, and take LA with you.
December 25, 2010 at 12:02 am
It's the end of the quote that is scary to me. But this is the ultimate end of liberalism. I can do whatever I choose to someone else and I cannot do anything to anyone else even my own child because that hampers their rights as individuals. This is why we need to get away from a system based upon rights and instead move to the more medieval idea of obligations/responsibilities towards others.
If we all stopped caring so much about rights and cared about fulfilling our society responsibilities we would all be able to live a lot more peacefully.
December 25, 2010 at 4:03 am
One thing SF has done right.
No. Banning something that holds deeply significant religious meaning for the Jewish people is not right.
You do realize that banning circumcision today means banning Catholic catechesis tomorrow, don't you?
December 25, 2010 at 5:57 am
Amy, the Catholic Church is next, these people who decided on that policy are dangerous people. They are a danger to our democracy becasue they are willing to violate other peoples right to practice their religion. Remember, these marxists wnat control and they give a damn about you Amy.
December 25, 2010 at 2:17 pm
While the prohibition applies to minors, it is like prohibiting infant Baptism for the Jewish faith.
December 26, 2010 at 1:47 am
Remember, these marxists wnat control and they give a damn about you Amy.
I know that. I'm well aware of it. Catholicism poses a threat to their ideology, as does any religion that puts God and family central rather than government.
While the prohibition applies to minors, it is like prohibiting infant Baptism for the Jewish faith.
Don't give them any ideas.
December 27, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Why is it that parents are so gung ho on cutting the sex organs of baby boys? We used to circumcise girls in the US. It only became illegal in 1996. It is about time that we left the sex organs of baby boys alone.
December 27, 2010 at 9:48 pm
To the last poster:
There is a difference between male and female circumcision. Male circumcision does not affect the function of the sexual organs as female circumcision does. And a good number of Muslims do not consider female circumcision to be Islamic. This proposed ordinance also would make a millenia-old practice in Judaism illegal, so it would not pass constitutional muster, even for the likes of the Ninth Circuit. Then again, I can imagine the SF City Council daring SCOTUS to enforce their ruling….
December 28, 2010 at 4:19 am
Wait… will they also outlaw ADDING to the male body? This would certainly upset many San Franciscans! 😉
December 28, 2010 at 5:29 pm
The ritual circumcision done by ancient Jews is not in anyway reflected by modern methods of circumcision.
I'm wondering how the writer's of this blog believe they are either creative or in the minority….
December 28, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Sabine S:
Please re-read the proposed law. No religious exemptions. This would ban the bris. The ADL and other Jewish organizations are opposed, and even the Ninth Circuit would overturn it (maybe)…
December 29, 2010 at 1:44 pm
I am sorry but many men benefit from this procedure. It certainly helps prevent human papilloma viruses. Not only jews but moslems do this.
Not doing it is stinky!
January 12, 2011 at 6:27 am
It is unethical for doctors to perform medically unnecessary surgery. Circumcision is not medically necessary. It does not address any existing medical problem. The foreskin is not a deformity. All boys are born with one. Parents may not give proxy consent for medically unnecessary surgery. Again, circumcision is not medically necessary. No genital cutting is permitted on baby girls. Constitutionally protected gender equity requires that if girls are protected from any form of genital cutting, no matter how minor, so should boys be protected.
It seems so simple and logical, I can't understand how so many don't see it. Permanently removing healthy, functional tissue from a minor who cannot give consent is just plain wrong.