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.

That's fine.

It doesn't matter to me.

What matters to me is that the Constitution is not abridged by any laws which violate it.

I doubt

Lew Rockwell would support a governmental ban on circumcision. That's the real issue here.

In answer to the

In answer to the above:

Circumcision is not necessary. Female genital mutilation (circumcision) is performed around the time of puberty, and like male genital mutilation, it is done without anesthetic.
Would you subject your 10 year old daughter to the torture of having part or all of her clitoris removed? I'll bet some of you would if God told you to.

As to the religious question: the practice of YOUR religion stops at the tip of MY penis.
I was born into this world owning only one thing: MY BODY.
YOU do not have rights over it. Parents have no rights, other than in the health and well being of the child. I was injured soon after birth and I had no way to understand or object.

How many others have been injured by misinformed parents, or religious zealots? Sorry, but if witch burning were part of your religion, I'd be objecting too.

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

Totally irrational and

Totally irrational and irrelevant responses — typical.
Who will protect children from abusive and unnecessary medical procedures?
Are you alright with female circumcision? What if human sacrifice is part of someone's religion?

What don't you people get about the concept that I OWN MY BODY. If anything is going to get cut off for cosmetic or religious purposes, I should make that choice, not you.

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

Are you saying

keeping the government's nose out of peoples' business is "irrelevant?"

You havn't answered any of my

You havn't answered any of my questions.
Does a reasonable person have reason to object to the unnecessary removal of parts of their body? How is this not an assault?
If I am unable to communicate, can my caretaker decide to remove parts of me for his own reasons? If I were comatose and a Jewish family were taking care of me, could they remove my foreskin without my consent?

Lets think a little bit about what circumcision is: the mutilation of an infants genitals for no other reason than some ancient Jewish tradition. Can you imagine anything else as evil as that?
At what point is it not proper for government to intervene in such a case? If it were any other body part, you can be sure that all the foreskins-for-god club members here would be objecting.

I'm uninterested in your rationale for continuing this barbaric practice. What is irrelevant, you ask?
The irrational belief that religion justifies the bodily assault on an infant — that is what is irrelevant.

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

I can imagine

something more evil.
It's what your are advocating.
Illegal, unconstitutional stripping of people's guaranteed rights, under a totally specious and massively hyperbolic rhetoric about "what you want" and how you want to FORCE it on others by the point of a gov't gun.

I'm uninterested in your rationale for continuing this barbaric practice of your gov't thuggery promotion.
The irrational belief that your MILITANT STATISM justifies violent assault against people exercising their freedom of religion within their own families is puke-worthy.

Where to start with that pile

Where to start with that pile of excrement....

Lets start with who is forcing what on whom. The Parents are forcing the partial amputation of an infant's penis — an individual with legal protections. Under any other circumstance it would be a criminal (violent) assault, but religion supersedes the right of the individual in this case.

I am reporting a crime against myself. I was mutilated against my will, only days after I was born.
Now, fuck your religion and anyone else's that pretends that they are above the law and can do irreversible harm to children because God told them to do it. Go hyperventilate and spew your vitriol on someone else. You are way off the mark about me, pal. And you are just plain wrong about this issue.

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

Yeah,

that's rational, and not at all emotional!

Eventually it all comes out,

doesn't it?
Now we know what's behind it.

Look.

I firmly believe vaccination is a form of child abuse. We are using our kids as guinea pigs in a massive experiment in which we alter their immune function and genetics in ways we can't understand. They are suffering as we trade ordinary childhood diseases for conditions such as asthma, severe allergies and cancer. Granted, I can't prove any of this in a scientific way, because the studies aren't done, but I can point to the available evidence.

If I had a child, I would never vaccinate him or her for anything, just like you would never circumcise your son. But would I support legislation to force others to follow suit? No, never!

People who believe in vaccination defend it with a religious like fervor. They're not even worth talking to, but I understand they're entitled to their beliefs and their vaccination practice.

I stand up for the rights of those who choose to keep their kids unvaccinated, and trust eventually the evidence will convince others to end this barbaric practice. That's all I can do. That's all you can do, too, if you are a genuine defender of liberty.

If you're relying on the government to force people to follow your personal beliefs, then your nanny state leftist views don't belong on a libertarian site, and we're going to continue to call you on it.

Hilarious. You think

Hilarious. You think protecting infants from genital mutilation is a leftist view, and because I disagree with you on this issue, I should leave the site? That just tells me you are out of ammo. Your moral compass is malfunctioning.

You compare cutting off a part of an infants penis with vaccinations? Really? If you can't distinguish the difference then this discussion is pointless.

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

About

one hundred vaccine related deaths get reported to VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) every year in America. How many kids die from their circumcisions? And when did I tell you to leave?

Approx. 200 baby boys die

Approx. 200 baby boys die from their circumcisions, but cause of death is not listed as such. It is listed as "blood loss" or "sepsis" or some such B.S.

And I hate vaccinations, too. I didn't have my kids done. And I don't take the stupid flu vaccine either. We never get sick with anything infectious.

I have no doubt

that applies to vaccinations, too, that is, many more die than ever get reported because their deaths are listed as something else. By "200" do you mean 200 in America per year? Thanks for the info.

With vaccinations, I would

With vaccinations, I would think that the deaths come, sometimes, quite a bit later, not so immediate as a baby who dies from an infected circ. or from the blood loss. I can't even fathom what that figure might be.

Yes, my understanding is that the figure of 200 refers to deaths in America per year.

Then there are countless deaths in Africa in the socalled "circumcision schools". But they are not babies any more.

Thank you, Ruth.

Please forgive my skepticism...

but do you have a link to a source that 200 babies die per year in the US from circumcision?

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

Did you write this: "If

Did you write this: "If you're relying on the government to force people to follow your personal beliefs, then your nanny state leftist views don't belong on a libertarian site, and we're going to continue to call you on it."

Are you going to pretend that the implication was that i Don't belong here? You're dishonest and frankly a little irrational. I don't waste my time on people like that.
You could have an ally, but instead you choose make an enemy.
YOU don't deserve to be here.

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

I apologize

for the implication, but it wasn't my intent to tell you to leave. All I said was your VIEWS don't belong here. It's my hope you'll stay long enough to realize no matter how sincere your motives, expecting the government to save people from themselves is an empty path best not followed.

And how am I telling you to leave when it's clear from my post as long as you express a nonlibertarian opinion, "we're going to continue to call you on it?"

And take a look in the mirror. I suppose you think telling me my moral compass is off and I'm out of ammo is perfectly rational. It seems to me you're the one who tried to make me into an enemy.

I see. It is my "views" that

I see. It is my "views" that don't belong.

Maybe the views of these folks over at the Lew Rockwell site don't belong here either.
http://tinyurl.com/4cmk9gh

And we shouldn't welcome any of these "nonlibertarian" opinions from Mises.org here at the DP.
http://tinyurl.com/4l9njpv

get back to me after you've digested some of those.

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

I'm not saying

there isn't a case to be made for not circumcising our boys. That isn't the issue! The issue is the SF bill that would ban circumcision in boys under the age of eighteen. If you can find evidence any one of those authors would support a governmental ban on circumcision, you get back to me.

It is nice to know where

It is nice to know where people stand. Isn't it?
Are you an anarchist? Minarchist? Do you believe that our government - in as much as it exists - has a duty to protect the rights of the individual? Yes or no.
I believe the answer is yes and that includes those who are unable to give informed consent about irreversible, and possibly damaging surgery.

And this really is going nowhere if you won't even read ONE of the articles. What reason - other than your pride - do you have for showing me such disrespect?

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

Like I said

Show me the evidence any one of those authors supports a governmental ban on circumsion, and I'll look at it. It's not disrespect. It's staying on topic. And I'm a minarchist.

This is my problem with you.

This is my problem with you. You do not answer. You do not discuss. You do not stay on topic. I've pointed out where your accusations of me fall flat. The links I provided point to sites that are ideological wellsprings for our movement and the opinions expressed there condemn the practice of circumcision - male and female.
YOU will need to read and learn the reasons. You obviously have a disagreement. Fine. You need to explain why infants have no rights when it comes to their own bodies.

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

You're asking me

to support an unconstitutional bill that infringes on parents' rights and religious practice. I'm sorry you miss your foreskin as much as I miss my tonsils, but that's the price of liberty.

Wait. What?! The price of

Wait. What?! The price of liberty is my foreskin?!

Yikes! You're comparing your tonsils to my foreskin? LOL

Why don't you go cut off the outer skin of your clitoris?
Then we'll talk.

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

Are you in pain?

Are you missing an important piece of your immune system? Honestly, I'm tired of your whining. What's done is done. You can make it right again by educating people, but advocating government force is just plain wrong.

im assuming thats to me (reply is at the bottom)

its not about what I think is right or wrong, thats what you arent getting (as well as the idea that giving up your ability to freely exercise your religion to the state essentially gives away ownership of your body and mind anyway)

you own your body when you can assert your rights to it, until then, you are your parents. if THEY think that the best thing to do is raise THEIR child in a religious way and choose circumcision, then so be it. i do not have a claim to THEIR child, and neither do YOU.

I agree with you about what circumcision is. my son is not circumcised. i wish i was complete, but i understand that my parents did what they thought was right at the time.

the easiest way to get something done isnt to change the behavior; its to change the meaning of existing behavior. like a cut isnt a cut, torture isnt torture, its enhanced interrogation. war isnt war, its kinetic military action. declaring war now appare

parents have no rights?

if i baptize, should i be prosecuted for attempted murder?

look, kids are the responsibility of the parents, and its up to them if they want to raise that child in a particular religion, up to the point where children can assert their own individual rights.

ill say it again; legal intervention DOES NOT protect liberty, it merely TRADES one liberty for another.

the easiest way to get something done isnt to change the behavior; its to change the meaning of existing behavior. like a cut isnt a cut, torture isnt torture, its enhanced interrogation. war isnt war, its kinetic military action. declaring war now appare

That isn't

the point. The bottom line here is whether or not you agree the government ought to step in and ban circumcision. I don't.