Bill of Rights Circumcised in San Francisco

First it was right wing religious moralists who object to abortion, and want it banned. Now, it’s a group of left wing collective moralists who object to circumcision for minors, and want it banned.

What do these two diametrically opposing political groups have in common besides wanting to ban something? Neither possesses even the most basic understanding of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Both would eviscerate your liberty by vote in a heartbeat.

Civilization is permeated with folks who believe that if other folks among them think or do something they don’t like, then it’s perfectly moral and proper to pass a law banning it by force. Kings and emperor’s did it all the time. Politicians do it all the time. Collectives do it all the time.

Most people today, even in America, are convinced that they can ban anything – even liberty -- by a simple democratic majority vote. They ignore the purpose of the Constitution, which expressly limits that power.

Anti-abortion proponents, referred to in my last post, are willing to pass one new law after another just to see how far they can go in their religious crusade to, at least discourage the exercise of a fundamental liberty, and at best to ban the liberty right altogether in satisfaction of their idea of God’s plan for humanity.

Now, anti-circumcision proponents in the city of San Francisco have demonstrated that they are perfectly willing to do the same.

A San Francisco political action group opposed to male circumcision has collected sufficient signatures to qualify a proposal on the November 2011 city elections ballot which would make circumcision of a male under age 18 a crime. To Hell with the Constitution, they reason; they’re just looking for a simple majority of voters to get their way in their city.

But, parents have been circumcising their sons for many thousands of years. Indeed, the practice is a religious obligation for many millions of people. When I was born post WWII, to a Protestant family in the heartland of Midwest America, most infant boys were circumcised regardless of religion because most baby doctors prescribed it for reasons of lifelong health. Any pain associated with the surgery was quickly forgotten.

Pro’s and con’s as to the value of circumcision are certainly debatable, but there are generally no harmful physical affects from it, and much evidence that it is beneficial. Moreover, I’ve never heard of a parent who decided to circumcise a child for the purpose of maiming him, disabling him, or inflicting pain.

If the practice of circumcision ever becomes scientifically ill advised in present day medicine, I’m confident that doctors and parents are capable of making the right decisions for the best interests of their own children.

Parents exercising individual liberty are concerned with the well being of their children far more than any government Authority!