Posted on 02/22/2011 7:00:57 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Self-described "civil rights advocates" say that a ballot proposition to ban circumcision is on track for gathering signatures, meaning that San Franciscans may vote on the measure this November.
The proposed law is being spearheaded by local resident Lloyd Schofield, according to the San Francisco Examiner.
It's part of a national push to end the procedure, which some say is steeped in tradition but poses risks and has little medical benefit. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association do not recommend routine circumcision.
Getting on the ballot is the easy part -- only about 7,000 signatures are required. Once it's there, advocates will have to convince voters that snipping off body parts is a bad idea.
Although some studies indicate that circumcision reduces the risk of STD transmission, others have indicated that the procedure is not worth the associated risks and diminished sexual function.
Several Jewish organizations have weighed in against the ban as well, pointing out that circumcision rituals play an important historical role for many Jews. Schofeld counters that under his proposed law, adults would be free to opt-in to circumcision, but infants would not be allowed to have the procedure until they reach 18.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcbayarea.com ...
Wow, stay out of our bedrooms but you can control our penis.
This is plainly anti-semitic, and totally unnecessary. Since when does a city have the power to "ban" medical or religious practices?.............
Let me go find the “government has the right to regulate circumcisions” clause in the Constitution. Hold on, I’ll be right back....
Somewhere on FR is a poster who’s longtime Tagline is: Liberalism is a mental disease.
If I knew who he was, I would ping him on this story.
I’ve never understood the practice myself.
The Leftie mind has decended into absolute insanity. I guess while “back-alley” abortions are bad... back alley circumcisions are OK???? I DO have trouble will liberal “logic”.
Check Article 36
Jewish law states that circumcision is a 'mitzva aseh ("positive commandment" to perform an act) and is obligatory for Jewish-born males and for non-circumcised Jewish male converts. It is only postponed or abrogated in the case of threat to the life or health of the child. It is usually performed by a mohel on the eighth day after birth in a ceremony called a Brit milah (or Bris milah, colloquially simply bris), which means "Covenant of circumcision" in Hebrew.
Apparently our first amendment means nothing. The Liberals know best and they have decided that the whole Judaism thing is just silly. San Francisco shall be Juden Frei.
It is a hygenic thing for males. There are medical benefits.
Why would they want to ban this?
This is a public health issue.
RE: I’ve never understood the practice myself.
See post #9
In San Fagsicko they want to protect the foreskin...assuming they allow the baby to be born.
It’s only about 3000 years old............
Communists are predictable, at least.
Make that 4000..............
It’s not just a medical or public health issue, it’s also a sexual confidence issue. Ask any heterosexual (I’m sad I have to delineate) American woman which type of penis they prefer, and it is overwhelmingly circumcised.
There’s a stigma attached to uncircumcised penises in American culture that’s not as prevalent in Europe, Africa and Asia.
I understand that for the Jewish males, but not for the rest of us.
It is a way to ban Jews without actually saying so..................
Just imagine what these maniacs will try to do if they finally take over the full government.
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.