Now the control freaks wanna control our cocks!

[Christians4LessGvt]

SF May Ban Infant Circumcision

By MATT BAUME

Tue, Feb 22, 2011

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.

If it passes, those caught cutting foreskins would face a fine of $1,000 and a year in prison.
Only people over the age of 18 would be allowed to have their foreskins removed.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/116618063.html?1

[kimba1]

lol
 I almost skipped this post. my curiosity got the best of me. parents been opting out for a decade. the ban might make it popular again.

[Xavier_Onassis]

On track for gathering signatures means that it might get on the ballot.

It does not mean that people will vote for it. Circumcision is about as personal matter as exists, and it is also related to religion, so it is likely to be ruled unconstitutional if it passes.

[kimba1]

religion?

every single woman I know had thier son get it for the ease of cleaning. not once was religion brought up,by anyone

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is almost certainly more hygienic, but it was originally a way of giving the Jews a military advantage. A common problem was that when the battle appeared to be going the wrong way, soldiers would switch sides. By having all the Jewish soldiers circumcised, it was no longer possible to claim that one was on the opposing side, as the circumcision was an irrefutable identifier.

In the 1930's there was a movement among doctors (a large number of whom were Jewish) to have babies circumcised at birth, which would make any effective Nazi-style segregation of Jews and Gentiles impossible. Since it IS more hygienic, a majority of even Gentile doctors joined the movement.

There is no question in my mind that any decision to enact and enforce this law would involve religion. I do not expect it to be placed on the ballot, or to be enacted into law. The operation has no real disadvantages: it is nothing comparable to female circumcision, after all. The decision is up to the parents. How could it be otherwise?