SF Circumcision Ban Makes November Ballot

[Agorism]

SF Circumcision Ban To Appear On November Ballot

http://www.ktvu.com/news/27941438/detail.html

SAN FRANCISCO -- In November, San Francisco voters will be asked to weigh in on what was until now a private family matter: male circumcision.
City elections officials confirmed Wednesday that an initiative that would ban the circumcision of males younger than 18 in San Francisco has received enough signatures to appear on the ballot. The practice would become a misdemeanor.
Supporters of the ban say male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation that should not be forced on a young child.
But opponents say such claims are alarmingly misleading, and call the proposal a clear violation of constitutionally protected religious freedoms.
The initiative's backers say its progress is the biggest success story to date of a decades-old nationwide movement to end circumcision of male infants in the United States. A similar effort in Massachusetts last year failed to gain traction.
Copyright 2011 by KTVU.com. The Associated Press contributed to this report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

[doodle]

Here goes another freedom of choice.

 

[1000-points-of-fright]

San Francisco is anti-Semitic.

 

[specsaregood]

I told friends and family in san fran to vote for the ban just for the LOLs. They seemed receptive to the idea.

 

[Dr.3D]

If it passes, wouldn't that just mean some people will leave San Francisco to give birth?

 

[specsaregood]

If it passes, wouldn't that just mean some people will leave San Francisco to give birth?

Not really. They could still give birth there and just have it done out of san fran later or pay the fine.

 

[John of Des Moines]

Just don't make me pay for it. Or the psychiatrist later on in life.

 

[low preference guy]

Here goes another freedom of choice.

yeah, and they did it after removing the freedom of choice to cut off people's heads. what bastards!

 

[doodle]

LPF, it's a family forum, please watch the terms used that may have dual slang meaning.

 

[Yieu]

Here goes another freedom of choice.

Freedom of choice means being able to chose whether you are circumcised. That is not possible if that choice was taken away from you by your parents. Parents circumcising their children is anti-freedom of choice -- it takes the choice away from the individual. The libertarian position is to give the individual maximum choice, so routine infant circumcision (that is, at the least, circumcision done to infants who are unable to consent when not Jewish or Muslim) is at odds with libertarian philosophy.

 

[aravoth]

The libertarian position is to give the individual maximum choice, so routine infant circumcision (that is, at the least, circumcision done when not Jewish or Muslim) is at odds with libertarian philosophy.

So is using the power of the government to enforce a cosmetic standard.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I lol'd at the part saying that cutting an infant's penis is a religious freedom. Anyone that defends the ban is just insecure about being circumcised

 

[AndrewD]

Im kind of new to this topic, I dont see the problem with circumcision? Unless the argument against it is totally based on morals or principle. Other than that, I say leave it alone and to me its a non issue.

 

[Dr.3D]

Im kind of new to this topic, I dont see the problem with circumcision? Unless the argument against it is totally based on morals or principle. Other than that, I say leave it alone and to me its a non issue.

It's about giving the child the liberty to make the decision to be circumcised. As an infant, they can not yet exercise that liberty.

 

[Rocket80]

Isn't there already a 30 page on-going thread on this issue?

Either way, might as well throw in my two cents, I'd vote yes on the ban.

 

[CrissyNY]

It's a ban on cutting a minor's genitals.

Freedom of choice is when that infant grows into a man and can decide on his own if he wants cosmetic surgery.

This is one of the few bans I support.

 

[Agorism]

Well there is female circumcision too. It was banned in the U.S. in 1996.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I'm not Jewish but I'm circumcised, the bit about not being inconvenienced to retract the foreskin to thoroughly wash my penis is a nice perk. Urinary tract infections suck.

But, seriously, I'm not particularly in favor of giving the government more authority than parents when it comes to raising a child. I'd likely not vote for a ban if I lived in San Fran. But then again, I wouldn't live in San Fran because hardly anyone else there shares my idea about letting parents raise their kids without government intervening.

 

[Agorism]

Victorians don't want the teenage males masturbating. That's the reason.

 

[Yieu]

So is using the power of the government to enforce a cosmetic standard.

While circumcision is unnecessary cosmetic surgery on a non-consenting minor, you lose a lot more than cosmetic looks -- you lose the most sensitive nerves in the human body. That's a lot at stake, and due to that it is not a decision that a parent can morally make for their child; only the individual can morally and ethically make that decision, when they are old enough to make informed consent to unnecessary cosmetic surgical alterations to their body.

To address your concern about the government though, an outright government ban may not be the most ideal way to go about it, but routine infant circumcision or the decision being left to the parent is certainly a violation of human rights.