Battle over San Francisco ballot measure to ban Circumcision

so I checked, the practice goes back at least 5000 years to ancient Egypt, and here you are on A2K trying to talk about why it started. I you were not there then you must have some amazing powers of perception that allows you to put yourself back in time that far and figure out why things happened.

Er...poor little thing.

Here, I'll help you.

Look up the meaning of tu quoque, then see if you are capable enough to read your own posts and see the two places where you have advanced the exact same argument you are getting your g string in an uproar about condemning in my posts.

If you can't manage in 24 hours I might hold your hand and show you....if I am still in the mood and feeling mean enough to enjoy shoo0ting mindless fish in a wee barrelette.

This is where your utter lack of desire to engage in meaningful dialogue and your habit of shifting ground constantly simply because your actual motivation is to froth at the mouth and condemn people trips you up. Not only do you never address a point made against you, you can't remember the very ideas you feign to espouse in your desire to hiss and drool in assumed outrage.

That is way too complicated and time consuming, leave it to a woman to put legs on a snake. Just tell me where you confused and I will try to talk down to you enough that you get it.

I 'm not a very good statistician, and I don 't have counter-statistics,
but I have a pretty strong hunch (agree or disagree ?)
that the contaminatory heterosexual intercourse was anal sodomy
(not implying forced). I heard this from a medical doctor who was expert in this.

I continue to feel immune from AIDS, in that from the day of my birth
until now I have never, never considered doing that with any person of any gender.
To my mind: that is ineffably abhorrent. In my mind, sex has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone 's rectum,
not even with a condom, nor any multiplicity thereof; worse than gross.

Do u oppose doing that ?

If I have been too redundantly repetitious in this, then perhaps I shoud apologize.

This has resulted from a few causes:

1. My posts r addressed to different people,
who might not have seen my earlier contributions on that point.

2. Sometimes those redundant stories have a bearing on a variation,
a different aspect, of what I said earlier.

3. My short term memory is not much to brag about (getting worse).
I do not always remember to whom I have said what on which thread.

4. I also have a touch of OCD; not a lot, no repetitive rituals,
but a little that might find its way into some of my posts.





David

What does "OCD" mean - Often Commenting on David?

I thought I was very clear that this is NOT what I was asking when I wrote:




I assumed there was probably a general concensus that would support banning this practice, because it is damaging, nonconsensual, and not medically indicated. That it is performed because of cultural tradition would not, to my mind and I suspect to other minds here, merit continuing the practice.



That established, then we could turn back and look at circumcision of male infants in the same light:

- it is potentially damaging (in the sense that it may reduce sexual sensation later in life, even if we ignore the risk for infection, surgical error, and/or excess scarring, which risks presumably are minimal in western hospitals)

- it is done without the patient's consent

- and there is no clear cut medical evidence that population-wide circumcision is warranted medically.

Is the fact that there is a cultural legacy (albeit, as I understand it, a relatively recent one in the United States) of circumcision of male infants enough to justify perpetuating the practice? I think it's a very legitimate question, and one that I don't believe everybody seriously considers, simply because, "Well, EVERY man is circumcised." At the very least, some public controversy on the issue might motivate parents without religio-cultural baggage mandating circumcision might reconsider the generally knee-jerk response to have it done. From a medical standpoint, performing an elective surgery on a patient who cannot provide consent is highly suspect.


For my part, I don't know that I would line up in support of the bill banning circumcision in the United States because I don't believe it would reflect the will of the majority, but I think a serious examination of just why the practice of forced minor mutilation of the infant male member continues is warranted.


And again, I reiterate that my intention is not to equate the mutilation of female genitalia with the relatively (but perhaps only relatively) benign act of circumcision, but rather to consider the former case, where the moral and ethical distinctions are less muddy, and consider the latter, more controversial case in light of those conclusions. It's Ethics 101, really.

That is very clever, J !
I believe that is the first compliment that I 've awarded u.





David

Dale Carnegie (famous for his public speaking course) advocated:
" examples SCORE! Details BORE! "

I never agreed qua "details",
but there it is, for what it may be worth.





David

Yes

You have a feeble understanding of evolutionary dynamics.

this laziness is so not like you.....normally you do better than drive by's.

OK, I can't disagree.

Well, there, I agree with all your points.

July 20, 2011
Measure seeks to derail San Francisco circumcision vote
By Jim Sanders
[email protected]

San Francisco could not ban circumcision of children under new state legislation proposed this month in the Assembly.

Assembly Bill 768 would apply to any city or county government but was introduced in response to a San Francisco ballot measure designed to prohibit child circumcision there.

"To enact an outright ban on an expression of personal, medical and religious freedom is an affront to all who value liberty," said Assemblyman Mike Gatto, a Los Angeles Democrat who proposed AB 768.

San Francisco's first-of-its-kind initiative has drawn national attention for targeting circumcision, removal of the male foreskin, a practice that has biblical roots and that many believe was commanded by God in a covenant with Abraham.

Opponents of circumcision liken it to "genital mutilation" – the forced removal of a healthy body part from an unconsenting child. The San Francisco initiative allows for a medical exclusion but not a religious exclusion.

Lloyd Schofield, the main proponent of the initiative, said last month that "just because something has been done repeatedly doesn't make it moral or ethical."

If San Francisco's initiative is approved and enacted, violators could be jailed for a year, fined $1,000 – or both.

AB 768 was introduced as an urgency measure, meaning that it requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and would take effect immediately if it clears that threshold and Gov. Jerry Brown signs it.

Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, a San Francisco Democrat who is teaming with Gatto to push AB 768, said it makes no sense for California to allow a "patchwork quilt" of local laws outlawing medical procedures.

"The city's measure would put the Police Department and politicians in charge of who can and cannot get circumcised," Ma said. "We should not be putting government in that position."

AB 768 is meant to clarify an existing state law that opponents of San Francisco's circumcision ballot measure have cited in a Superior Court lawsuit aimed at disqualifying the initiative from the November ballot.

The existing law reads: "No city, county or city and county shall prohibit a healing arts professional … from engaging in any act or performing any procedure that falls within the professionally recognized scope of practice of that licensee."

The Legislature has not yet scheduled AB 768 hearings.

Rep. Brad Sherman, a San Fernando Valley Democrat, recently introduced similar legislation in Congress.

U.S. circumcision rates have been declining for several years. Today, about half of all boys born in hospitals are circumcised, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/20/3780658/measure-seeks-to-derail-san-francisco.html#ixzz1Sf8ojt2c

Meanwhile reports during the last few days have it that San Francisco courts have laid off 40% of the help and closed scores of courtrooms because they have no money. Perhaps the city political leaders had best get back to their day jobs rather than running around micro managing everyone elses lives...loading down a court that already has seized up due to a mismatch of work and resources? It is just a thought.