Religious groups oppose male circumcision ban for San Francisco | Dan Schreiber | Local | San Francisco Examiner

I have very mixed feelings about this. Numerous sources say there
*are* some medical benefits to circumcision -- for instance that being
uncircumcised can make transmission of HIV more likely, and that
harmful bacteria can breed under the foreskin without proper attention
to hygiene.

  On the other hand, I strongly question whether these benefits are
significant or undisputed enough to warrant the aggression of
performing this procedure on male infants without their consent,
especially given the dubious motives of religious organizations which
have traditionally pushed the procedure (and are apparently still
doing so). Being circumcised reportedly makes sex somewhat less
pleasurable, and the anti-sexuality biases of Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam are pretty well established.

  If I had a son I would not get him circumcised, and were it not for
the strong hurdle I think any proposed law should have to overcome, I
would be inclined to support the measure as a legitimate function of
government (outlawing aggression). As it is, I still may vote for it
myself, but remain undecided. At this point I would vote for the LPSF
to remain neutral.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))


  I agree. This is what makes the proposed ban on non-consensual
circumcision of infants tempting to support.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))


  Yes, that's an excellent point too. The proposal really is a mixed
bag, imho.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))