That is the question, and in San Francisco, the supervisors of the city have decided to put it to a vote in November.
On the ballot this autumn will be a measure which would outlaw circumcision of baby boys. If the voters who walk the streets of the politically-strangest city in the nation pass it, parents will not be able to lawfully have their infant sons circumcised. The penalty for doing so will be a $1,000 fine and/or up to a year in jail.
Are you kidding me?
No, but hardly surprising, since these are the same supervisors who banned the McDonald’s Happy Meal.
Are these guys just anti-kids?
They would argue that on the cutting issue, they are trying to protect kids. They ask, “Why unnecessarily mutilate baby boys?”
I suppose it’s a valid question, more so if you’re a Gentile than a Jew. Yet, the medical community would tell you that those without foreskin are more greatly protected against STD’s and UTI’s. (All those bad conditions with three letter abbreviations.)
My problem with this whole dealio is not whether we should circumcise infant boys. It’s the government once again trying to control our lives and strip us of our liberty and freedom to a greater degree.
Oh yes, one more thing….the supervisors are saying that once 18 years old, if a boy still wants to be circumcised, it would then be legal. How accommodating of them!
I knew a guy in college who elected to have this done. It was very painful and he walked gingerly for a good week.
On the other hand, I don’t know any guys who remember being circumcised as infants.
No comments:
Post a Comment