Proposal For Circumcision Ban In San Francisco Could Be On Next Years Ballot
A proposed ballot for the city of San Francisco could see circumcision banned for newborn males within city limits.
A group led by Lloyd Schofield submitted the initiative to the city’s Board of Supervisors and they would like to see the ban placed on next years November ballot along with a $1,000 fine and a misdemeanor for any children under the age of 18 who receive a circumcision.
For the initiative to move forward Schofield must first collect 7,100 signatures by April 2011.
First no toys in Happy Meals and now this? Come on San Fran! And on a more serious note, the religious implications of trying to uphold such a law seems like a futile attempt.
Recommended Articles...
Endangered Sharks: Are Some Species in Danger of Becoming Extinct?
Ruben Law Firm San Francisco on Pro Bono Divorce Clinic
Treasury Secretary: GOP Has to Move
Group Tries To Ban Circumcisions In San Francisco
Can a Gay Judge Rule on Prop 8? Federal Court to Decide
HIV Scare Shuts Down Porn Sets Throughout San Fernando Valley
Russell Crowe Goes on Anti-Circumcision Twitter Rant![Steve Simon's Defense of Gay Marriage Goes Viral [Video]](http://imgcdn.nrelate.com/image_cache/www.indyposted.com/066b288361057b9f50097ce212a8efed_thumb_gay-marriage-ban-300x215.png "Steve Simon's Defense of Gay Marriage Goes Viral [Video]")
Steve Simon's Defense of Gay Marriage Goes Viral [Video]
Last American Car Dealer Closes in San Francisco
Barry Bonds Guilty Of Obstruction of Justice In Steroids Case
7:03 am
This measure would simply update the existing law that protects girls from assault on their genitals, to also include boys.
To those like you who oppose this measure, let me see if I understand your reasoning correctly:
A man has NO right to control his own body, as long as he’s an infant… but at some point (is it age 16? 21? when he’s achieved fatherhood? or some other criteria?), that same man now DOES have a right to control not only his own body (too bad it’s too late for his most sensitive erogenous tissue), but also the bodies of other people…? No wait, only if those other people are boys, but not girls…?
Whereas a woman HAS a right to control her body, even as an infant…? but when she meets some criteria, then she can ALSO control the bodies of boys… but not girls?
Seems pretty twisted to me.