On the San Francisco Ballot This November: Circumcision
As Ursula reported in February, a group of "intactivists" have been working for months to get circumcision banned in the city of San Francisco. This past week, the group finally collected enough signatures to get their measure on November's ballot.
As of yet, I don't know how I feel about circumcision. Frankly, it couldn't affect me less. However, a ban on circumcision would appear to be an elimination of choice for parents. And considering the fact that San Francisco is per capita the most childless city in the United States, it seems as though the measure is little more than a veiled attempt to impose the will of the non-parent majority onto a small parent minority. Before I make my ultimate decision, I'll go back to read the comments on Ursula's thread. But my initial hunch is that stripping away the rights of parents to act in what they deem to be in the best interest of their child is contemptible.
- Comment (21)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: On the San Francisco Ballot This November: Circumcision
For Brutus, as you know, was Caesar's angel.
Judge, O you gods, how dearly Caesar lov'd him!
This was the most unkindest cut of all...
May '10
Re: On the San Francisco Ballot This November: Circumcision
The question is less about parental control than it is another attempt to undermine our Judeo-Christian society. Another attempt to destroy the foundations of the Bible and God in order to build their utopia. Infant male circumcision is a covenant between God and the Jews, but more relevant to me is that it seems to be the right way to go. The more we scientifically study the issue, circumcision seems to be a benefit.
Edited on May 2, 2011 at 6:43pmJan '11
Re: On the San Francisco Ballot This November: Circumcision
The Onion is more realistic than that city government.
Aug '10
Re: On the San Francisco Ballot This November: Circumcision
Are these "intactivists" by any chance members of RECAP, the organization that Dave Barry wrote about many years ago?
Apr '11
Re: On the San Francisco Ballot This November: Circumcision
Anti-circ activists come off, to me, as even more wild-eyed than the usual types who have one pet issue to which they are thoroughly wedded. I was researching whether or not to circumcise, and the near-religious fervor these types have against the procedure (not medically necessary in the least, but ultimately rather harmless as things go) is off-putting. I didn't opt for circumcision for my son, as I didn't see the point, since my religion is silent on the subject.
If this passes, it seems bound for a legal challenge, as two of the three Abrahamic religions require it. Even in the most liberal of enclaves, the rate of circumcision still stands at 50%, as I understand it.
Apr '11
Re: On the San Francisco Ballot This November: Circumcision
Is a ban on infant/toddler ear-piercing on the intactivists' agenda as well?
(BTW, intactivists is hilarious, no matter how tiresome they themselves may be.)
Dec '10
Re: On the San Francisco Ballot This November: Circumcision
Arise ye sons of Abraham! The liberals are trying to regulate our penises! This can only lead to furtive parents seeking out back-alley mohels to perform secret circumcisions in dangerously unhygenic conditions. Essentially this is an assault on tradition. SanFran libs see it as an indelible mark of patriarchy stemming from the original patriarch himself.
Edited on May 2, 2011 at 6:56pmMay '10
Re: On the San Francisco Ballot This November: Circumcision
Katherine: The question is less about parental control than it is another attempt to undermine our Judeo-Christian society. Another attempt to destroy the foundations of the Bible and God in order to build their utopia. Infant male circumcision is a covenant between God and the Jews, but more relevant to me is that it seems to be the right way to go. The more we scientifically study the issue, circumcision seems to be a benefit. · May 2 at 6:30pm
Edited on May 02 at 06:43 pm
This is my sense of this matter as well; the leftist assault on the Biblical tradition and the autonomy of the family.
Sadly, I will not be surprised if this ban passes. So typical of the lefty fringe here.
May '10
Re: On the San Francisco Ballot This November: Circumcision
Why has no one mentioned the medical community? This is a personal healthcare decision made between the parents and the physician. Anyone who doesn't have the medical background to understand this shouldn't have a vote. Period. This is insane.
Dec '10
Re: On the San Francisco Ballot This November: Circumcision
It needs to be made clear that this effort in San Francisco is a direct assault on the Muslim religion and its cultural traditions. (No one in San Francisco cares about assaults on Judaism and its traditions, but they will feel differently when the Islamic devout make their displeasure known to the City.)
Aug '10
Re: On the San Francisco Ballot This November: Circumcision
It's possible that some people choose to be intactivists for the name alone.
I've known activist-types to be attracted to an activist activity mostly because they can give it a hilarious name.
Dec '10
Re: On the San Francisco Ballot This November: Circumcision
J. Hale, the funny thing is that Israel has deployed a veritable army of urologists in sub-Saharan Africa to train local physicians in the proper surgical technique for circumcision. Circumcised men have significantly lower rates of transmission of HIV and other sexually-transmitted diseases (there being fewer nooks and crannies for pathogens to hide in without a foreskin, and tougher skin on the glans due to its exposure to air and friction). One would think that HIV transmission rates would be a concern to San Francisco residents, but apparently the sole concern of the "inactivists" is having as much penile tissue as possible.
Re: On the San Francisco Ballot This November: Circumcision
Proponents are obviously trying to circumvent parental authority. Therefore, opponents must not be circumspect in their opposition. Even if circumstances require a certain amount of circumlocution, circumvention of this proposal certainly requires people willing to circumambulate, if you will, the wall the radical elements of the city are attempting to erect. I hope the good people of San Francisco are able to circumnavigate this fetid swamp. Circumstantial evidence points to a desire to circumvolve the city in a cloak of “progressivism.” What a circus!
May '10
Re: On the San Francisco Ballot This November: Circumcision
Mr. Sajak, I hope you are practicing safe blogging...
Jul '10
Re: On the San Francisco Ballot This November: Circumcision
Perfectly OK to slice and dice 'em in the womb, but don't touch their little thingy once they manage to emerge.
Feb '11
Re: On the San Francisco Ballot This November: Circumcision
How big a step is it from banning something local to banning entry of someone who has done it elsewhere?
Dec '10
Re: On the San Francisco Ballot This November: Circumcision
If the City calls a summit meeting on this proposal, will that be a circumference?
Mar '11
Re: On the San Francisco Ballot This November: Circumcision
How can a city government regulated medical practices I thought I woman’s right to choose was a scared right? I have heard, in some cases there are some medical benefits (however, I am not sure what the reasearch really says). I wonder how long it would take for San Diego to become the Communist Republic of San Diego if the U.S. ever broke apart?
Aug '10
Re: On the San Francisco Ballot This November: Circumcision
It is San Francisco. Isn't that pretty much saying the same thing?
Sep '10
Re: On the San Francisco Ballot This November: Circumcision
Helpful visual aid, here.