From: yee@mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: In defense of female circumcision.
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:03:33 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>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?

In the way that such shooting are generally "prevented", yes.

In nearly all such attempts, the government chooses to disarm all citizens
in hope that the maniac will not be able to obtain arms.  This leaves the
citizenry helpless to all maniacs (both government and individual).

Remember, our system of government is built upon innocent until proven guilty.
The set of all citizens has not proven to have maniacal tendencies so should
not be deprived of access to arms.  In general, our government does not follow
each and every citizen to make sure that we do not commit crimes; they wait 
until a crime is committed before intervening.

Once a maniac has started random shootings, a government attempt (preferably
through its citizens) to stop the maniac is perfectly justified.

>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...

Yes.  The government has no right to interfere with the choices of the people.
It is only when these choices interfere with the rights of other citizens that
the government has any call to intervene.

In the special case of a child, the child is presumed not to have the ability
to give informed consent so it falls upon the parent to make this choice.  
The point in time when a child attains the ability to make informed consent 
is another philosophical debate entirely.

>How is this claim [about circumcisions decreasing sexual pleasure] established?

I'm afraid I don't know.

>>This has been shown to be false.  According
>>to current medical wisdom, there is NO merit to male circumcisions at all.

>On the other side, pediatricians say that the medical risks attendant upon
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the surgery far outweigh the possible future consequences of foregoing the
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>operation.

All medical decisions are made using a cost/benefit analysis.  [A side
comment: In general, this is in terms of medical cost and medical benefit.
In the future, the analysis will include fiscal cost/benefit.]

>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...

No procedure is totally risk-free; there is always the chance of a negative
outcome.  It is this probability along with its cost which figures in on the
negative part of a cost/benefit analysis.  While the probability of a 
botched male circumcision is low, the cost is incredibly high.  The benefit
is debatable.

Note that I am not advocating the elimination of the practice of male
circumcision.  The decision of whether to circumcise your child is not mine
to make; I simply question the benefit.  Nobody gave me the right to play
God.  Similarly, nobody gave the government the power to meddle.

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

Yes.  This is the cost of preventing a paternalistic government which 
prevents individual choice.  No system is perfect; I simply prefer freedom
over slavery.

>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).

This is exactly what I am arguing.  The power of the government should be
limited to the enforcement of contracts, the maintenance of a stable
currency and a few other powers.  A weak government is one that can not 
oppress its people.  While evil, the existance of a government is necessary.

Admittedly, if the government is too weak, the government is prone to
collapse because of stronger powers which tend to have differing interests.
Sooner or later, the society will collapse into anarchy.  Where the line
should be drawn wrt the powers of government, I do not currently know.
I simply know that over the course of 200 years, we have drifted to the
point where the government is too strong and too prone to meddle in the
private affairs of individuals.  Perhaps the anti-federalists were right
after all.


----
-- 
411 Blockley Hall      |                    Conway Yee, N2JWQ
418 Service Drive      | yee@ming.mipg.upenn.edu    (preferred)
Philadelphia, PA 19104 | cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (forwarded to above)
(215) 662-6780         |
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7499 talk.abortion:57500