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 ...
Heh heh. He said "spearheaded."
So these jackasses in uber-liberal SF would allow a pregnant woman to kill a viable fetus up to the day of its birth, but then get their panties in a wad about a religious practice that has been going on for over 3,500 years and which was VERY well known to the Founding Fathers and those who ratified the 1st Amendment’s “free exercise” clause? I guess that the fact that Jewish men have a positive obligation to circumcize their sons means nothing, the fact that even the least or non-religious Jews do this means nothing. That is putting aside the medical benefits of doing this. For those medical benefits, see http://www.circinfo.net/
Expect a magnitude 9.0 pretty soon, SF is asking for it.
from the article it is not banned. when a male turns 18 they can have this done.
“Ah traditions! perhaps the jewish religion should contemplate ending this
“tradition” as it most surely is a form of genital mutilation...the basis for the “tradition” is what? where in religious writings does god say to cut a male infant’s foreskin?...isn’t it a tradition born out of hygene, not religious text or dogma?”
It is NOT a tradition, it IS law and it is very, very clear that this is the case. A quick Google of “Jewish circumcision obligation” will lead you to Genesis 17:13: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0117.htm#13
Clearly, there are no rocket scientists or brain surgeons in your family.
“from the article it is not banned. when a male turns 18 they can have this done.”
No problem for someone who isn’t Jewish (well, except for the fact that it is very painful when you’re not an infant, so you’ll need to go under or get a local anaesthetic, each of which have their own risks on top of the risk of the surgery). But Jewish men have a positive obligation to circumcize their sons on the 8th day of life. It can only be postponed (and often is) if the child is having health issues (but it is very rare to go beyond 30 days after birth). So the proposed measure DOES violate religious freedom.
it is assumed there is no pain. Some form of anestesia is used. (wine or a local med shot)
Female circumcision is banned.
Female circumcision is banned.
There is little or no pain, as the nerves in the area are not developed. Further, I have witnessed dozens of circumcisions, including that of my own son - the boys either don't cry, or if they do the crying is done in 10 seconds or less. That strongly suggests that either the cold air (from unwrapping the diaper) or the tugging startled them, causing the crying. The drop or 2 of wine that they get right after it is over could not possibly have any pain-relieving effect in that short a period of time.
As for female circumcision (i.e. genital mutilation), there is no place for it in Jewish law. In fact, there is a specific command not to mutilate the body in any way (including tattoos), so other than the specific directive from G-d to Abraham (and to all of his descendants) to circumcize their sons, such is (and should be) prohibited. Further, there isn't even a scintilla of evidence that female circumcision brings with it any benefit - actually, it only brings with it lots of pain and a huge risk of infection. It is truly barbaric.
San Francisco: No blood for mohel!
^^ Since when does a city have the power to “ban” medical or religious practices? ^^
Since 1996 the US has banned even a pin-poke to female genitals to draw a ceremonial drop of blood, with no religious exemption.
If they just call it “body modification” San Francisco will make it mandatory.
I remember Mel Brooks’ cameo in ‘Robin Hood- Men in Tights’ as a wandering mohel “It's just a nip of the tip, all the ladies love the new look”, and he had this miniature guillotine.....
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.