Posted on 05/26/2011 2:26:24 AM PDT by Kaslin
Putting a medical choice up for a vote? How strange.
Well they are the exception dontcha know it?
This crosses into so many areas, but the biggest are religious freedom and parental rights.
Now, if you’re referring to abortion as a “medical choice”, then we’re going to part ways. Foreskin doesn’t have the intent of becoming a human being.
Circumcision decreases the spread of HIV in homosexual males and is diametrically opposite of the intent and wishes of the homosexual community of San Francisco.
no they are putting an “age of consent” to it.
So the queers in SF like an uncircumcised weiner up their rear. They are trying to effectively ban Judaism and Islam. Where is the national media? Where are the people who wanted to prove our virtue by having the Ground Zero Mosque?
Get serious! It's about protecting the rights of a defenseless individual to keep his normal body intact and prevent permanent changes not called for by medical necessity.
The circumcision camp don't respect individual rights and treats kids like property.
The overwhelming majority of circumcisions are not for religious reasons.
A little self conscious about that ugly foreskin your parents didn't have the good sense to take care of?
There’s no restriction against states protecting their citizens from mutilation.
Thus the prevalence of Flow-vees in the early nineties. ;) Likewise the banning of Jarts, many a moon ago.
The legislation here has a barely unstated intent of impinging on a religious practice thousands of years old. In SF, I sincerely doubt that hygiene in foremost in the minds of those creating the law-to-be.
Furthermore, within the bill, and in the spin, an attempt is made to equate circumcision of men with female genital mutilation, wherein many far worse things occur. I am not in any way saying that everyone should or shouldn’t be circumcised. I am saying that this is a bill directed at long-standing religious practice in a country where such practices are ordinarily protected under law, as part of the ability to freely practice one’s religion.
Yeah, Islam practices a lot of barbaric things from long ago, violating the rights of others. Doesn’t make them right.
Kids are not “property” per se, but parents are entrusted, by God, with the responsibility and AUTHORITY to make decisions for them until they are able to make decisions for themselves.
God thought circumcision was alright, so I don’t see a problem with it if it is for religious reasons or not, because my wisdom is not above His.
However, it is VERY TELLING that this law specifically states that there are no exclusions for religious reasons.
Yes, interesting that abortions will still be legal in SF. I note that one cannot mutilate the foreskin of the baby boy’s penis under this proposed law, but you can still mutilate the Whole baby boy with no problem.
It would seem that there would be ways to get around this.
Oh, he said, I use them to make the most magical wallets!
What's so special about the wallets, he was asked.
Well, when you rub them, they turn into brief cases.
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.