Comments on: San Francisco proposed ban on infant circumcision

By: David Smith

David Smith — Tue, 31 May 2011 01:35:26 +0000

Whoa!!!! I just realized. If we ban all permanent modification to the human body before the age of consent, the government will never be able to tattoo our social security numbers on us.

By: David Smith

David Smith — Tue, 31 May 2011 01:32:29 +0000

Simple fix:

As soon as you turn 18 sue your parents for any permanent screw ups.

Could be interesting:

Circumcision
Religious training
forbidding certain activities considered normal
etc.

By: Paul

Paul — Sun, 29 May 2011 11:19:40 +0000

Actually, some of the most prominent intactivists are Jewish and arguably the populations that are most antisemitic are from circumcising cultures themselves. Anyone ever hear of Islam? If anything the proposed bill will protect Jewish boys as well as Christian ones and in that sense the circumcision ban is actually progressively pro-semitic. Think about it.

By: robert

robert — Sat, 28 May 2011 00:24:24 +0000

I’m only speculating, but if circumcision were some old Native American tradition, instead of something “Jewish,” the haters in SF wouldn’t be opposed to it.

By: Tony

Tony — Fri, 27 May 2011 15:46:47 +0000

Bumper:

“… poetic justice will require a class action lawsuit against the City of San Francisco by every male born there who didn’t get the procedure.”

What about every male born who did get the procedure but doesn’t want it?

Mr. Olson:

That WSJ editorial is unconvincing. Ms. Cole engages in a post hoc verification that her husband’s circumcision saved her life that she can’t prove. Her assumptions require correlation to equal causation. There are studies looking at serodiscordant couples and circumcision. The results are mixed.

More to the point, being an American, presumably her husband was circumcised as an infant. The studies she cites (with “strongly suggest”) were all conducted on adult volunteers. Ethically, that is quite different from non-therapeutic child circumcision. The proposal in S.F. would not restrict voluntary adult circumcision for any reason. Her husband’s death is sad and unfortunate, but it doesn’t make for good public policy for healthy children.

By: D

Thu, 26 May 2011 17:09:38 +0000

It’s a good thing San Francisco is so tolerant of gender and sex issues…

J.T., I see by your argument that you support banning ear and other body piercings and tattoos. Interesting.

By: robert

robert — Thu, 26 May 2011 00:04:49 +0000

I don’t think these health arguments really matter too much.

The fact is: Jewish males are required to be circumcised.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Wed, 25 May 2011 20:40:34 +0000

Cf. article in today’s WSJ entitled “Circumcision saved my life,” by a woman with an HIV+ husband:

http://j.mp/mRRKtl

By: Walter Sobchak

Walter Sobchak — Wed, 25 May 2011 18:52:16 +0000

This initiative shows that the convergence between leftism and Antisemitism proceeds apace.

By: robert

robert — Wed, 25 May 2011 17:44:13 +0000

We should outlaw Baptism!

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3069604/Baby-drowned-during-baptism.html