A quiz for conservatives on San Francisco’s proposed ban on infant circumcision
The San Francisco Examiner reports:
[C]ome November, it sounds like voters will have the opportunity to jump on the ban wagon by deciding whether to ban male circumcision.
San Francisco resident Lloyd Schofield said Thursday he is “on track” to have enough signatures to place his proposed measure on the November ballot that would make it illegal to “circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the foreskin, testicle or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18.”
This presents a good exercise for social conservatives: If you support morals legislation (e.g., suicide, euthanasia, drug use, animal cruelty, bestiality, prostitution, sodomy, homosexuality, polygamy, adult incest, public nudity, profanity, stem cell research, human cloning, and so on), what sorts of arguments might you employ to oppose the forthcoming San Francisco initiative to outlaw infant circumcision? Arguments based on personal privacy might not work if you support prohibitions on prostitution and incest. Arguments based on religious freedom might not work if you support prohibitions on polygamy and drug use (e.g., peyote). Arguments based on parental rights might not work if you support bans on stem cell research and human cloning.
So, how do you oppose the ballot initiative on infant circumcision?