sineP!

What is the deal with San Francisco? First, the city attempts (successfully, for now, pending a mayoral veto) to ban toys from Micky-Dee Happy Meals. Now, there is an attempt to place a ban on circumcisions on an upcoming ballot.

From UPI.com...

A San Francisco man is trying to get an initiative on an upcoming city ballot that would ban male circumcision, officials said.

The proposed measure for the November 2011 ballot would amend the city's police code "to make it a misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the foreskin, testicle or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18," The (San Francisco) Examiner reported.

Under the proposed measure submitted to the Department of Elections, doing so would result in a fine of up to $1,000 and up to one year in jail.

The initiative, which would require the collection of 7,168 valid signatures by April 26, 2011, was submitted by San Francisco resident Lloyd Schofield, who argues it is genital mutilation.

"You shouldn't be performing cosmetic surgery for other people," said Schofield, who points out that female circumcision is banned.

"Tattooing a child is banned as a felony and circumcision is more harmful than a tattoo," said Schofield, who believes religious traditions should change.

"People can practice whatever religion they want, but your religious practice ends with someone else's body," Schofield told CBS news. "It's a man's body and … his body doesn't belong to his culture, his government, his religion or even his parents. It's his decision."

No word on what would drive Lloyd to take up the mantle of the "No-Circumcision Movement." I mean, it's an odd thing to rail against, considering the myriad ills of the world.

So, with that in mind, is it more reasonable to say that;

A: Lloyd feels strongly on the issue of an individual's right to choose, and feels that said right should preempt a traditionally parental decision,

or

B: Lloyd has a preference.