Friday, February 25, 2011

OK To Kill The Unborn, But Not To Cut Off A Foreskin

Reader and fellow blogger MikeAT passed this story on to me, and it's just too good to pass up:

Most bans in San Francisco are enacted by the Board of Supervisors, but come November, it sounds like voters will have the opportunity to jump on the ban wagon by deciding whether to ban male circumcision.
San Francisco is full of abortion supporters. How does one square these conflicting views? (Yes, I know how people will try to spin an answer, but they'll only end up looking like pretzels.)


Peter Reilly said...

I really don't think you have a valid comparison here. The issue with abortion is whether the fetus is a person with rights or, prior to birth or some point between conception and birth, a part of the mother's body.

Someone who holds the view that the fetus is part of the mothers, however mistaken you might think that view, might support the circmcision legislation and accesss to abortion on the theory that adults can do what they want with their own bodies, but should not be mutilated before then.

Darren said...

Let the fetus last a few weeks longer, and then it's safe?

You're right when you imply that I think such a view is "mistaken".

Peter Reilly said...

My point is that it really doesn't relate to the circumcision issue.

Darren said...

I know what your point is.

Rhymes With Right said...

This logic also applies to permitting body piercings and tattoos. Given that these are not banned -- and that this ban puts a particular burden upon practitioners of certain religions -- it strikes me that there is a serious problem with the law as written.

Beyond this, I wonder -- what does the law say about San Francisco residents who take their children outside the city limits for purposes of circumcision? Will there be a penalty for doing so? Or is this a toothless measure that disproportionately impacts the poor with the crushing burden of traveling to jurisdictions where circumcision is legal -- a burden which they are less able to bear than the wealthy? Hey -- that last argument always gets trotted out by anti-lifer from Planned Parenthood when they agitate against restrictions on abortion.

Actually, we need to adapt a Planned Parenthood slogan to oppose this law -- how's this? "Every Foreskin A Wanted Foreskin"

Peter Reilly said...

I agree that the law isn't such a hot idea. I do have some sympathy with the sentiment behind it. I dislike most messing around with our basic equipment including tatooting, piercing, breast augmentation and abortion. Whether legally proscribing them makes much sense is a different issue.

handsinthesoil said...

The liberals are against the death penalty but all for abortion. It baffles me - kill the innocent by the millions and spend tax $ on keeping alive a few guilty scumbags for lack of a better term. I have yet to get my hear around that.

And the whole circumcision thing is a whole 'nother can of worms. I about got crucified by my birthing-class group for saying I was planning to circumcise our son for religious reasons. They compared it to female circumcision which is like comparing a scraped ankle to a gangrenous amputated limb or something.