Posted on 07/07/2011 4:07:47 PM PDT by Eleutheria5
The city of San Francisco finally weighed in on a local ballot measure that asks voters to ban the circumcision of male children, saying its attorney claim the proposed law would be unconstitutional if applied to Jewish mohels. The city attorney's office made the argument in response to a lawsuit by a coalition of Jews and Muslims that has asked a California court to remove the initiative from this year's November 8 ballot. The lawsuit, which names both the city and the anti-circumcision activist who qualified the measure, argues that state law bars local governments from restricting medical procedures.
If a judge accepts that reasoning and only excludes physicians from the ban, the measure would target only religious faiths that practice circumcision, thereby runing afoul of the First Amendment to the Constituion which guarantees religious freedom, lawyers for the city wrote.
"San Franciscans cannot be asked to vote on whether to prohibit religious minorities from engaging in a particular religious practice, when the same practice may be performed under nonreligious auspices," the city's brief said.
"If the court concludes that the measure is pre-empted as applied to medical professionals, then the remaining application is unconstitutional and the court should remove the measure from the ballot entirely," the city attornies concluded.
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
The unborn male is seen as a separate person with a right to life and liberty until delivered and then becomes parental property to be mutilated all because he was born perfectly normal.
Defense of medically unnecessary circumcision is insanity.
I had a right to life, liberty, and property as a child. I also had to do chores. Was that slavery?
“Mutilation”? Why that magic fireman looks right purty compared to its uncut appearance, is more hygienic, and can do anything that the au naturale version can. This debate goes back to the post-Alexandrine Greek occupation of the Holy Land by Antiochos, and was resolved long ago. Parents do have the right to decide such things for their children even in San Francicko, as they have done for thousands of years the world over.
I’m not taking a position on circumcism. I am pointing out the irony that, in San Francisco, a foreskin has the same value as a human life.
“Pro-lifers should naturally oppose circumcision.”
There’s no real comparison between the two, they are totally separate acts.
“The unborn male is seen as a separate person with a right to life and liberty until delivered and then becomes parental property to be mutilated all because he was born perfectly normal.”
Those circumcised are not unborn. They are already born. Your use of mutilation is also very incomparable too. It doesn’t affect a person’s sexual functioning to any significant extent.
“Defense of medically unnecessary circumcision is insanity.”
That would pretty much mean all of it, if you mean “neccessary”. Even when done with medical authorization, it isn’t a proven neccessity.
I would also note that sex-changing operations are usually not neccessary either, but the main difference between that and circumcision is that I have yet to see a serious movement about accepting the circumcised as something special.
Child circumcision is a crime that should be prosecuted.
It’s not mutiliation;it’s part of a covenent between G-d and the Jews.
BTW
What does this have to do with being pro-life?
The one that’s “cut” does look a whole lot better than the one that is not!
Oh, please. This is a stealth propagation of homosexual esthetics, forcing their paraphilic POV on normal people.
If it were criminalized in statute, it would be unconstitutional. Would you outlaw piercing girls’ ears, too?
1. Circumcision is not irreversible.
2. Even if it were, it is not “mutilation;” if anything, it’s an improvement.
3. It bestows at least one benefit, possibly two.
4. If child circumcision were a crime, All my ancestors and myself and my eldest son are all guilty. Generation after generation of Jews, Muslims and African animists have practiced child circumcision. But now—watch out! San Franciscans suddenly got a hard-on to ban it, so thousands of years of tradition have to go out the window. Nonsense. “Those that care not for tradition will care even less for their posterity.”-Edmund Burke.
We have to accept that we have different opinions.
The only thing I wonder, as is the case of other things that homosexuals do not like, is how circumcision is a threat to homosexuals?
Does anyone have any theoretical thought about it. Perhaps it’s not the circumcision so much as they somehow don’t like the small religious minorities that don’t bow to their infiltration and manipulation. Or whatever it is, their list of enemies makes about no sense at all to me.
Weren’t there others at the time of the Jews that practiced circumcision somehow? I would also state that perhaps the majority of those circumcisions that occur now, are not for religious purposes. As I said before, those who practice it either medically or religiously don’t bother me, they all leave me well enough alone, and I leave them well enough alone. I just don’t see circumcision as a problem in society with my stances on abortion and other issues at stake. The other issue I had was the wicked comic that pretty much portrayed the hero as a Nazi propaganda cartoon would have been done. I am not Jewish, but what they do doesn’t concern me all that much. There’s no “circumcision pride”, no people trying to grill me about it, etc., and I leave them alone.
The costumes in Aristophanes’ comedies invariably included an oversized external leather penis. Those of the Greek characters were uncut. Those of Persians and other foreigners were circumcised. Whether or not this was actually true, it was the perception of Athenian Greeks at the time of the wars between Athens and Sparta, so it must have had some basis.
“I would also state that perhaps the majority of those circumcisions that occur now, are not for religious purposes.”
I was about 11 before I first saw an uncut weiner in the dressing room of a public pool, and those two boys were vastly outnumbered. At least when I was a kid, circumcision was almost universal.
1. Circumcision is not irreversible.
Really? I did not know that, but even if I were one of those infant boys who got it, I really could care less.
4. If child circumcision were a crime, All my ancestors and myself and my eldest son are all guilty. Generation after generation of Jews, Muslims and African animists have practiced child circumcision. But now—watch out! San Franciscans suddenly got a hard-on to ban it, so thousands of years of tradition have to go out the window. Nonsense. “Those that care not for tradition will care even less for their posterity.”-Edmund Burke.
I am not Jewish, but at the same time, circumcision is benign compared to a great deal of the other things that get pushed in the rest of society’s face. Again, people who are make no big deal about it to me, so I leave them alone in return.
Thank you, Morpheus. But stay away from San Francisco. You are now officially a heretic, and liable to be burnt at the stake.
I wonder if extended lower lips will be the fashion there this year.
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.