Circumstantial protection

San Francisco voters look set to consider the pressing issue of... banning circumcision:

A ban on circumcision could end up on San Francisco's November ballot.

A voter in the city says he will submit more than 12,000 valid signatures to the elections office today. That's more than the 7,200 needed to get the measure on the ballot.

The proposed new law would make it a misdemeanor to circumcise a person before they are 18-years-old.

"We don't come at this from a religious angle," Lloyd Schofield told the San Francisco Examiner. "We feel this is a very harmful thing. Parents are guardians. They are not owners of children. It's a felony to tattoo a child."

I don't see how one could deny this comes from a religious angle, since that's the overwhelming reason parents choose to circumcise a male child.  So far as I know, no major religion requires tattooing a child.  That comparison is what you call a red herring.

More importantly, I strongly suspect the vast majority of those signing the petition against removing a small amount of skin several days after a child's birth would have absolutely no qualms with said child being completely dismembered in the womb by an abortion procedure.

Color me unimpressed.