Earlier this year, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance that, basically, outlawed Happy Meals.* Now, there will be an initiative on the ballot in San Francisco in November that would make it illegal, without any exception, to circumcise male babies.**
I assume on the other hand, that choice is preferred position by far in San Francisco when it comes to abortion.
So, it would appear that, in at least certain parts of the left coast, the only time parents will have a choice about their child, is before it’s born. You can choose whether to have it, but once it’s born, people in San Francisco aren’t going to let you choose what he or she should eat or, if this initiative passes, whether a boy can be circumcised.
An interesting approach on "the right to choose".
-----------
PS Obviously, one response is that some would let you choose Happy Meals and circumcision, but not whether to have the baby. I’ll let others make that comment.
* The ordinance doesn’t ban Happy Meals by name. What it does is to ban toys from being given away with meals where the food and drink either exceed 600 calories or more than 35% of the calories come from fat.
** “Against the cut,” The Economist, May 21, 2011; Diane Cole, “Circumcision Save My Life,” The Wall Street Journal, May 25, 2011.
Comments