(CBS) The city that will soon outlaw toys in McDonald’s Happy Meals could have a measure banning circumcision on next November’s ballot, reports CBS San Francisco.
“It’s genital mutilation,” said Lloyd Schofield, the author of a San Francisco ballot measure that would make it a “misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the…genitals” of a person under 18.
Baby boys in San Francisco may be relieved but not everybody agrees with a proposed ban.
“I just had him circumcised 3 weeks ago,” said Heather Wisnicky of Sacramento, mother of Tyler, a 6-week-old baby boy. “It’s a health issue. It’s cleaner,” she said.
Scientists with the Centers for Disease Control are still studying whether circumcisions are healthier, and have promised recommendations to the public. Meanwhile, according to the New York Times, a CDC researcher reported a sharp drop in the number of American parents choosing circumcision in hospitals - from 56 percent in 2006 to less than 33 percent last year.
We're spending millions of "stimulus" money to teach African men how to wash their uncircumcised parts after sex to prevent disease. A few millions more and we should be able to perfect that technology and bring it home. I'm thinking two words...
...power washer!
More at Jammie Wearing Fool
Posts
Dear Friend,
ReplyDeleteI have greatly enjoyed looking through your blog. I adore your way of presentation.
I was able to get some of the information from your blog as well as by following external links from your blog.
So I have added your link in My Blogroll section. Please check it. If any changes has to be made please mail me. I would be glad if you could provide a link.
It would be great pleasure if you can add my blog. Here is my blog information:
URL: http://satellitesnews.blogspot.com/
I hope you find this link appropriate and useful. Thanks for your help and consideration.
Sincerely,
Michael Olivia
This measure would simply update the existing law that protects girls from assault on their genitals, to also include boys.
ReplyDeleteTo those who oppose this measure, let me see if I understand their 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.