From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: In defense of female circumcision.
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 12:18:00 EST

In article <106013@netnews.upenn.edu> yee@mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee) 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).

That wasn't the question that I asked, however.  By your answer, you do
conclude that government may prohibit murder--you just don't accept
certain ways of attempting to do that.


>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.

But this doesn't make sense--you keep contradicting yourself.  One minute,
you say "the government has NO right" to interfere.  The next minute, you
say it can interfere.

You have to pick *one*.  You can debate *when* they should/may interfere,
but that's a whole different question.

The point is, you *do* recognize the "right" of the government to interfere.


In the case of child abuse, we *do* have a conflict between the "choice" of
a parent the rights of a child.  So, by your theory, the government may
have the right to intervene.

The question that remains is whether any particular action (say, circumcision)
can be considered to be child abuse.

To answer that question, you need to address the specific action.


>>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.

Well, I'll tell you--being Jewish every male in my family (I mean extended
family) has been circumcised.  I know of no case where one had his penis
accidentally cut off.

I suspect that the "botch" rate is very low--and what's more, I suspect that
the "botches" typically come in the form of incomplete removal of the
foreskin, excessive scarring, excessive bleeding, perhaps infection
(immediately afterward).  I can't help but think that a botch in the form
of cutting off the penis has to be incredibly rare, if it has actually
ever occurred.

(Have you ever seen a circumcision performed?  I have, at least the way
it is done by Moyles, and I really can't see *any* way that the penis could
be accidentally cut off.  As I recall, the tool used is basically a
circular scissor.  One circular blade goes around the outside of the
foreskin, and one goes on the inside.  The two blades come together and the
foreskin is cut.  The worst I could imagine would be that too much skin
could be removed.  I can't imagine how the tool could possibly cut through
the penis by accident.)


>>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.

Freedom for parents, I guess.  Slavery for children.



>>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.

This is not at all what you are saying!  See above and below...


>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.

Enforcing contracts *is* meddling in the private affairs of individuals.




-- 
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?"
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7537 talk.abortion:58334