From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: In defense of female circumcision.
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 01:16:05 EST

In article <105696@netnews.upenn.edu> yee@mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee) writes:
>
>While a person may make a bad choice, the scope of the problems
>are far smaller than when a government makes a bad choice.  A maniac, for
>instance, would be hard pressed to equal the feat achieved by the Nazi
>government when it killed 11 million civilians.

In other words, I may make a bad choice if I choose to go out shooting
people randomly--but the danger of the government attempting to intervene
and prevent me from doing so is more dangerous?


>>The intent of the family is not necessarily relevant.  If I truly believe that
>>ritual sacrifice is the only way that I can save the eternal soul of my
>>child, should I be allowed to kill that child?
>
>While the choices by individuals may be bad, abuses of power by the government
>are far worse.  What gives you (through your agent the government) the right
>to judge whether the choices of others are in fact good.  Remember, the
>Spanish Inquisition was out to save the immortal souls of its victims.

Is your argument that we should have *no* government action, whatsoever?

If it's not, then I sure don't understand what you are saying...


>>Known to whom?!!  Certainly not to me.  My circumcised penis enjoys
>>sexual pleasure just fine, thank you!
>
>This is what I learned in medical school.

How is this claim established?


>Furthermore, male circumcision was advocated earlier because of a percieved
>lower rate of penile tumors.  This has been shown to be false.  According
>to current medical wisdom, there is NO merit to male circumcisions at all.

Here's a little clip from my Grolier's electronic encyclopedia:

----
In modern times circumcision is often performed on newborn males, but
physicians disagree on whether or not the procedure is medically advisable
(other than in cases of malformation). On one side, urologists claim that
circumcised males have far fewer urinary tract infections and are less at risk
for catching sexually transmitted diseases than are uncircumcised males.  On
the other side, pediatricians say that the medical risks attendant upon the
surgery far outweigh the possible future consequences of foregoing the
operation.
----


>>>There is a known risk that more than just the foreskin is removed and 
>>>that the child would then have to be raised as a girl.
>>Where the hell do you go for circumcisions??  What do you use, an axe??!
>>
>>I suggest you consult with a good Moyle.
>
>I learned of the case in medical school.  The circumcision was "performed"
>by a physician.

Note I did not recommend a physician!  Personally, I wouldn't trust a
physician.  While I've never seen a serious problem as the result of a
physicians work, I've seen a number of cases where it just didn't look as
though the procedure had been performed properly.  (Either a substantial
portion of the foreskin remained, or an unusually large scar was apparent.)

I'm glad to say that, in my own experience, I have not seen any such problems
with Moyle-performed circumcisions.


>Wrt your advice of going to a good Moyle, is it your contention that they
>are perfect and never make a mistake?  After all, they are human too.
>Mistakes happen.  The question is whether the benefit outweighs the risk.

I suppose mistakes happen with everything--but I've seen how Moyle's perform
the surgery, and it does not appear to be a procedure that is terribly prone
to error...

In any case, as I stated above, I would recommend that *anyone* (Jew or
Gentile) planning to circumcise their son find a Moyle rather than a
physician.  Apparently, the extra few thousand years of experience handed
down does make a difference.


>>Parents have *never* had an absolute right to make decision on the behalf
>>of their children.
>>
>>Once again, why shouldn't I be able to decide that it is in my child's
>>best interest that I kill him or her?
>
>But what gives you the right, as an outside party, to make the decision?
>Certainly the parents have a stronger claim.  While the parents may never
>have had an absolute right, they certainly have a stronger claim than you
>or I.

So, you think that if I do decide to kill my child, everybody else should
just say "Father knows best!"?


>I can find such a justification.  What gives the government the right
>to make the decision for me and mine?  To pretend that the government
>has that power implies that it is the ultimate arbiter of my families'
>well-being.  It may choose not to impose its will upon me but it does
>have the right to decide for me and mine.  To give it the right to outlaw
>male circumcisions is too dangerous.  My argument is basically the
>classic "slippery-slope" argument.

Slippery-slope arguments are one thing.  As far as I can tell, your
argument would preclude *any* government involvement in *anything*.

If this is the case, you certainly wouldn't be completely alone--but it
would be nice if you would explicitly state so, in order to avoid
confusion (at least on my part).


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty