San Francisco circumcision ban struck from ballot
 

A San Francisco judge has struck a proposed male circumcision ban from a November ballot, ruling that the city cannot regulate medical procedure and citing religious freedom protections.

The ruling was applauded by opponents of the proposed ban, who attacked it as anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim.

In May, advocates of a ban gathered enough voter signatures to put the measure on the city's ballot.

They described the sacred rite for Jews and Muslims as "genital mutilation".

The measure, which qualified in May for a spot on the ballot, would have made circumcision of a minor boy punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 (£612) fine.

The US federal government already bans female circumcision.

Jewish and Muslim groups said the proposal was an assault on their ancient religious practice and likened the proposal to circumcision bans in the Soviet Union.

Lloyd Schofield described the ancient Jewish and Muslim rite as "forced genital cutting"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14335715


Note: 28 July 2011 Last updated at 21:21 GMT

Stupid judge, stupid religions. Obviously both suffered a circumcision right between their ears.

Lets not circumcise them, but cut their balls off. In the name of evolution, I mean.

Do you mean this procedure? :hmmm:

It's lobotomy ....:yep:

:rotfl2:

well, me personally being circumsized, i can say theres nothing wrong with my equipment and accessories. It doesnt affect anything. Female circumcision, however, lobs off the clitoris, and THAT is mutilation and is rightfully banned.

Sometimes evolution takes care of itself....:03:

Some have no "balls" and then it becomes less of a problem :D

Both are mutilation in my book, just one is worse than the other.

Great topic...not :hmmm:

I didn't know that freedom of religion allows you to mutilate your child's body without his consent.

As if you really know something about it.

What I do know is that you do not own your children, and that the only body that you own is your own.

Forcing an unnecessary permanent change in your child's body even though he has not consented and cannot consent is pretty obviously wrong whether religiously motivated, or not.

Indeed, if circumcision is protected by the First Amendment, then a whole slew of procedures would also be protected, like tatooing, piercing, etc. - things that would rightly be considered child abuse. Circumcision is different only because it is widespread and traditional. But that doesn't make it right.

Do you understand that?

Very deep and thoughtfull...
Thank you foreskin man:salute:

http://www.adl.org/NR/rdonlyres/e475...g20110603a.jpg

I'm circumcised and am not Jewish I thank my parents for it. why? Hygiene. It's often done to lessen chances of infection and STD's