As you may have heard by now, San Francisco will be voting this November on whether or not to ban circumcision in the city.Those pictures are so repugnant I can't even look at them for long, if at all. And if proponents of the ban are only citing Jews and not Muslims, then I wonder if they'll even remotely frown whenever an Islamist performs the ritual following whatever judgement is made in November. In fact, I wonder if they even care about females, the real victims of circumcision in the Islamic world, whenever it happens to them. Why do I doubt they care about what Ayaan Hirsi Ali went through?
Defenders of the measure say it’s all about “human rights” and “protecting babies” from unnecessary procedures.
But critics suspected there was something vaguely anti-Semitic about the whole proposal, since among Jews (and Muslims, as well) circumcising male babies is a religious duty, not just a mistaken medical procedure.
And aside from that, the comic put out to coincide with what this now poisoned city looks destined to go through with gives the medium a very bad name.
Update: I see that last year, CBR spoke about this trash, and had the gall to ask if the world is ready for it, without even telling whether at that time, there was any anti-semitism or other prejudices early in the publication. Now, in this newer take they make, there's one commentor, if any, who says:
I’m still trying to figure out why [Matthew Hess], a gay author who can’t naturally have any children of his own, is pro-abortion but anti-circumcision. With circumcision – the kid lives. If he needs more pleasure with his partner, there are plenty of drugs out there for that. He cannot blame his parents forever.I guess the author really hates life, doesn't he?