Self-described "civil rights advocates" say that a ballot proposition to ban circumcision is on track for gathering signatures, meaning that San Franciscans may vote on the measure this November.
This is the most humorous example of how intellectually disingenuous the pro-abortion choice crowd is when they claim that abortion is a private decision between a doctor and their patient.
According to this view, the government needs to protect young, innocent human beings from the horrors of having a small piece of skin removed from an admittedly sensitive part of their body. This protection supersedes the decision making process of the physician and patient's parents, and clearly shows that when it comes to foreskin, the government knows what is best more than the parent or doctor.
However, the decision to intentionally kill an innocent human being remains out of the purview of government and continues to be a protected right that can only be determined without government interference. Foreskin > children when it comes to value.
It is a strange world we live in.
...without government interference.
ReplyDeleteWell, not really.
The government often subsidizes abortion directly.
Even without directly paying for abortion, the government subsidizes it by providing police protection for abortuaries.
Imagine if a state governor, upon election, said that his government would not support abortion in any way. For example, police forces wouldn't arrest pro-life protestors who blocked aborturary entrances. Police wouldn't arrest someone such as Roeder who acted to defend the innocent.
I don't think pro-aborts really want a lack of government interference. No, they want government to subsidize abortion through police protection.
Rich,
ReplyDeleteAt first I thought you got this from "The Onion" or something ... maybe Saturday Night Live ... but no script writer could make this kind of stuff up.
Amazing.
Thanks for the post.
One thing has nothing to do with another. A person can quite easily oppose both abortion and circumcision. I know *I* do.
ReplyDeleteBob: "...no script writer could make this kind of stuff up."
You do know that the number of circumcisions has dropped sharply in the U.S., don't you? Perhaps in a few years, it will be as low as that in Europe.
Bbmmg39: No one said the two issues had anything to do with one another. Serge's point was the cognitive dissonance (something Serge is very adept at identifying) in the notion that San Franciscans would petition government interference in the circumcision decision but see no such need in the protection of the actual life of that same human being.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, I didn't know that the number of circumcisions is dropping. I learn something every day. But I'm not sure why that is relevant to Serge's point or why the U.S. should want to replicate Europe ... in any area.
Bob, if I start a petition to expand town library, will you then assume I must have no problem with abortions or child trafficking? Wait until someone supports the thing you oppose before ripping him/her for supporting it. It's also true that you can agree with a group on one thing while disagreeing with it ardently on another.
ReplyDelete"And no, I didn't know that the number of circumcisions is dropping. I learn something every day. But I'm not sure why that is relevant to Serge's point or why the U.S. should want to replicate Europe ... in any area."
The reason that fewer and fewer parents are having their sons circumcised has nothing to do with whether the practice is popular in Europe or not. (I agree that that would be a stupid thing to factor in.) The reason has to do with it being barbaric and pointless.
The reason I mentioned it at all is that some people are thinking opposition to circumcision is just some "nutty hippie San Francisco thing" or something from the ONION or SNL, when the practice of circumcision itself is the one in the minority world wide (and now becoming the minority view within U.S. borders, as well).