1 vote

SanFran to ban circumcision?

"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




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What on earth are you talking

What on earth are you talking about. Are you telling us that now you are an anarchist? Is there no aspect at all of statism that serves YOUR purposes? You don't like the laws which - to some degree, anyway - discourage bad people from breaking into your house, taking your valuables and beating you up?

Are you one of those "we only need police and armed forces" libertarians? Shucks, I think that police and armies are the two entities that should be privatized. They should be no state involvement here. People who like overseas wars can join a private army and put their arses on the line, all on their own dime. Leave me out of it. And nobody, and I mean nobody, terrifies me like the state-empowered police forces.

Ruth

Are you sure you have lupis? From what little I have read about it upon journeying into the dangers of aspartame it is known that aspartame toxicity mimics lupis symptoms and is misdiagnosed frequently.

It is in over 6000 products and getting very difficult to find because they call it things like "natural" or "artificial" flavorings. It's in soft drinks candy,gum,yoghurt,baby formula,drug pill coatings and just all kinds of food products.

You sure are right about

You sure are right about aspartame. It is impossible to avoid, if you want to partake of any snacks or store-bought food. You have to just avoid these things or get from a reliable source. Not always easy. Why are they doing this to us.

I was diagnosed

by a dermatologist who took a skin biopsy and blood tests, all of which were consistent with lupus, and had another ANA done by an internist, which confirmed the dermatologist's diagnosis. Yes, I'm sure I have lupus.

You'd be hard pressed to find a person who eats more cleanly than me. If I'm ingesting aspartame, I'm completely clueless as to where it might be coming from.

I'm curious, though: can aspartame toxicity cause the characteristic "discoid" skin lesions that are common to subcutaneous type of lupus I have? I'm fortunate in least I don't have the systemic type.

Thanks

for the link. It looks to me like it doesn't. Discoid skin lesions are very distinctive looking, rarely painful and seldom itchy, so they wouldn't be mistaken for hives. There are symptoms on the list that are common to lupus, though, and I've seen several other sources that say aspartame can act as a "trigger" that causes lupus flare ups. This is helpful: thanks again.

Settle down

The way I understand it, from a religious standpoint, male circumcision is mentioned in the Bible. Female "circumcision," however, is not mentioned in the Bible, or even in the Koran. It predates Mohammed, and is only loosely associated with religion. The Arab Muslims don't practice it. It's unique to the cultures of Africa.

This difference, from a legal standpoint, is significant. Because FGM is a cultural, not a religious, practice, laws forbidding it in America would not be unconstitutional the way they would be for male circumcision. I'm not saying there isn't a double standard at work here, too: I'm just saying the two practices aren't equivalent from a religious and legal standpoint.

I would be against any elective surgery being performed on female genitalia by anyone who isn't licensed to perform it, and I would allow the suggested AAP guidelines in my link for minors. Adult women, of course, can get full Brazilians if they like.

Does that answer your questions?

And if you were proposing a federal ban on male circumcision under the age of eighteen, with exemptions allowed for religious and medical reasons (yes, there are occasionally medical reasons for removing foreskin), I could accept that. It wouldn't be my preference.

Are you by any chance a

Are you by any chance a member of the legal profession, because it sounds as if you might be. I appreciate your lengthy reply, but no, sadly, it doesn't answer my questions. I was trying to get you to take a stand on these practices. You sound hyperlibertarian - you know, where people do not take a stand on anything except from a legalistic, mechanical viewpoint.

Er...how could anyone justify an exemption for circ made from religious motivation, but not longstanding cultural practice? What is so special about religion? Heck, I know Jews who eat pork, never go to the synagogue, have no use for the entire Law, yet have a religious circ at home. I would therefore say that in their case, the circumcision is a purely "cultural" practice, as female cutting is with the Moslems.

You refer to how laws banning FGM would not be unconstitutional, whereas laws banning baby boy cutting would be. However, you are begging the question, because the USA is no longer under the constitution and has not since probably 100 years ago. Why invoke constitutionality - or lack thereof - when it is obviously irrelevant in the US now?

You do know, I hope, that all discussion of circumcision includes a tacit understanding that sometimes a minor may truly require a circ, but that is another topic. However, to sum up: in societies where circumcision is popular, the doctors almost always run to circumcision as the first treatment. I've looked into this for 20 years and have found that in Europe, circumcision as medical treatment is the last resort. There's options in these cases that don't include any knives.

When you tell me to "Settle down", that is kind of funny, because I'm not trying to get under your skin, but it sounds like maybe that is the effect I am having. So, I apologize. I just like to joust, and I have no doubt you have what it takes to handle the likes of me.

Actually,

I told you to settle down because you came close to accusing me of being racist. And if I didn't answer your questions and you want me to, you're going to have to be more specific.

I will never, ever, agree with you constitutionality is irrelevant. And if you want to think of me as a hyperlibertarian, I'll gladly accept that label.

G'mornin! How are you this

G'mornin! How are you this fine, sunny morning, y'all?

I implied you were a racist, because it sounded to me like you were twisting and bending yourself into a pretzel to defend "religious" circumcision on Constitutional grounds, while claiming that banning of all forms (?) of FGM would be all right because for Moslems the practice is merely "cultural".

You are making angels dance on the head of a pin, and you know it. Moslem/African parents' "culture" don't deserve respect? Sounds a little dicey to me. I could, further, indeed accuse you of racism because you don't want to see Jewish babies protected from torture and denaturing.

I really don't care that much if FGM were to be legalized, and if Jewish ritual relgious circ remains legal regardless of any constitution. I just want it illegal for the rest of the population, those who don't have any handy "ages-old culture OR religion" to fall back on.

It is hard to pin you down, Ruth: The Constitution is passe. Finito. It has ceased to be nothing but a piece of paper and it pains me to see this truth.

I'll get off your case shortly - when I find out how we get the jokers in Washington to obey a piece of paper.

Like it or not

we're supposed to be living in a republic, where the law of the land is the ruler over even the elected officials. I know it hasn't turned out that way, and Benjamin Franklin warned us it wouldn't be easy when he answered a lady who asked him, "what did you give us?" and he answered, "a republic, if you can keep it."

I find your disdain for the Constitution to be baffling.
It's designed to be a steadfast document to which one turns for guidance when faced with difficult decisions such as these. It doesn't matter if other people bend and break it: we on the Daily Paul are better than that.

Keep in mind, also, Judeo-Christian beliefs are an integral part of our culture, and have been from the very beginning, while, despite us importing slaves here, African culture is not. It's customary for immigrants to adapt to the culture to which they move, not the other way around.

At the risk of sounding racist to you again, I'll say I have nothing but contempt for people who move to America and don't even try to learn English or ever rub shoulders with anyone else but other members of their own culture. Part of the beauty of America is the influence of many cultures all expressing themselves, but we're a melting pot, not a bowl of marbles.

I don't know how many second generation FGM supporters would exist after being influenced by American culture. It's not an accepted practice here, and it's not like their girls would be teased at school for not being cut the way they are in Africa.

And I could easily accuse you of antisemiticism for your implication being Jewish is no excuse for circumcising your male baby. I suspect antisemiticism is one of the motivating factors behind the SF bill.

But it does seem to me we've agreed, a compromise between us might be a federal law banning circumcision with exemptions available for religious and medical reasons. I find that to be still too invasive, but at least it's not unconstitutional. I'd also prefer it not be federal, and decided on state and local levels.

But, keeping the government out of this completely is still best.

And, by the way, you're the one trying to make angels dance on the head of a pin. You're trying to draw parallels between two practices (FGM and male circumcision) that share little in common other than they both happen to be performed on genitalia.

You're not the only one

with an opinion on this. I've talked to dozens of men through my life who were circumcised as infants who don't resent it and even appreciate it. I don't know of any scientific surveys, but I wouldn't be surprised if men who resent their circumcisions weren't in the vast minority.

I resent having my tonsils removed as a child, too, especially since I was diagnosed with lupus, but I would never support a piece of legislation banning tonsillectomies in people under the age of eighteen!

Interesting.

Because you're advocating doing worse, yourself.
You are going to FORCE people to do things the way YOU want, regardless of whether they want to or not, and you plan to put a gun in their face if they don't kowtow to your whims. Regardless of the fact that their actions are Constitutionally protected as not being "infringe-able". Which means your "laws" don't apply.
Take your "little problem" up with your parents, if you don't like what they did.

It's amazing the little tyrants that this site seems to be breeding these days.

Read the above, BigT. I used

Read the above, BigT. I used to think you were a reasonable person. I see now that it only takes one disagreement for you to turn into a slavering shit-heel.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

You're calling him

a "slavering shit-heel?" No, that's not irrational or emotional at all!

Dude,

ALL the facts are in my favor.
The ONLY thing you have is hyperbolic emotional rhetoric.

The fact is that this law is going down on Constitutional infringement grounds. It isn't going to be a real law.
No "real law" is able to be enacted in this country that supports your feeble emotional position.
I suggest you get used to it, because that's where it is, and that's where it is going to stay.

No amount of militant statism on your part is going to change anything.
As I previously stated, you may take your anger out on your parents. You may NOT take it out on the rest of society, because they are protected by Constitutional law from people like you.

The Constitution is a document of "force" and "coercion"

that most of the Founding Father's disagreed on -- the document itself is as "close" as they could get.

We have to read their letters - biographies - diaries to understand where they were headed.

Besides -- SanFran can do what it wants if you believe in localism; which is strongly supported by the Constitution.

Unless you are referring to Cali-Constitution? In that case I can't argue because I don't know it well enough.

The 1789 Constitution Was A Cotract With King George

The 1789 Constitution was a contract with King George to independently govern the States and collect taxes and eternal tribute to the Crown.
It was however the best deal any people had ever made with the aristocracy banksters.

Trinity can die.

The Matrix

And Trinity must die if we want to be free of the global aristocracy.

Do not expect a two century old deal with the devil to protect you!

The Oracle

The Oracle has spoken!

.

Maybe it is.

And it's the law of the land until it is amended or abolished.
It's not a requirement that a person "likes it".

"Localism" is fine, but no local laws may abridge Constitutionally protected rights. That's all there is to that.
SF can do what it wants, but it's going to be challenged on Constitutional grounds, and it won't stand.
This affects Jewish people immensely. There are going to be so many Jewish lawyers all over this case that you won't be able to count them. And in this instance, they'll be correct.

I'm probably opening

a huge can of worms, but the antisemitic flavor of the SF bill concerns me very much.

I really don't know

all the motivating factors behind this.
I have a sneaking suspicion that there is something more than meets the eye, but I don't know what it is.

So, I'm just taking the superficial case as presented, and dealing with it at that level.

I think its pretty funny how

I think its pretty funny how you project your emotionalism on me.
Let's see if you can answer some simple questions.

Is an infant a person and protected by the law?

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

In some things only.

The parents or guardians make the decisions for an infant.
That is the simple fact.
A child doesn't make his own decisions for all things, until he reaches the age of majority(18).

If you really want a law like this, you are going to have to get a Constitutional amendment passed, that removes the freedom of religion clause from the first amendment.
Good luck with that.

I see that you are unable to

I see that you are unable to answer a simple yes/no question.

I really don't see the point in dragging this out. You obviously think I'm an evil person and agree with Ruth that people like me don't belong here - or on earth for that matter.

Maybe you'll find some reason on Lew Rockwell's site. Argue with some of their "militant statist" views on this issue.
http://tinyurl.com/4cmk9gh
OR try the "Statists" on Mises.org
http://tinyurl.com/4l9njpv

Try and forgive this poor miserable socialist for believing in individual liberty and the right to not be mutilated at birth.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

Okay, fine.

For the record, I don't think you are an evil person, but you are advocating evil deeds.
I hope you will see the error of your ways.
Taking your anger out on other people because you don't like what your parents did with you, is not the way.

So you still think my

So you still think my opinions are "Statist"? lol
Did you even read any of those articles?

They nearly all agree that circumcision is mutilation and a violation of the individuals (non-consenting infant) right not to have unnecessary, irreversible surgery performed on him.

And your pathetic, weaselly, back-handed taunt about "complain to your parents"...You are an ass.
My parents, like most, were completely ignorant about what was being thrust on them by the medical establishment.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

If your parents

acted out of ignorance, then the answer is education, not governmental force.

What

Lew Rockwell thinks or anybody else thinks is not material to the issue.
Everybody's got an opinion. Opinions have no weight.
If you want to make a "popularity contest" out of it, put it up for a Constitutional amendment vote, and see how "popular" it really is.

Yes, Opinions have no weight.

Yes, Opinions have no weight. That is why you were being a giant ass about my opinion. Right?

Not that your opinion matters to me. In the long run it doesn't. But the folks that blog at lew rockwell and Mises do matter to me. If their opinions have no weight, then I really wonder why you are here.

You accused me of being a militant statist, among other things. I concede your point that 'everybody's got an opinion'. ...even though it is miles off target.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan