reply to post by pieleg
Although it is far from uncommon for governments to overstep their bounds in terms of civil liberties and freedoms of the people, unfortunately
sometimes it is a necessary evil.
Demonstrate the necessity of this "evil."
That is the problem with the entire premise of this argument. The justification for "why shouldn't parents be able to remove the foreskin of their
child" is "because I don't think they should." It's a subjective line of reasoning with little objective support (what little there is comes
into conflict with objective support for circumcision).
Even legal history is against this. Prohibition and Abortion were both spearheaded by groups that argued the laws would protect aspects of equality
and lead to overall sociological improvement. Both failed miserably - both in being enforced, and where it was enforced; the claimed benefits were
Once society can display the ability to look after their vulnerable members without abusing them then the people can reject government
involvement in the relationship between parent and child.
This is a sociological can of worms to establish as a government authority.
As a parent, you are responsible for proper nutrition of a child, correct? Failing to feed a child correctly negatively impacts their present
performance and their future performance (and possibly instills them with destructive eating habits). This establishes grounds for government
regulation regarding the meals parents can serve to children.
Of course - exactly what constitutes good nutrition is somewhat debated. Should anything not carrying a certified organic label be banned from a
child's food plate? Some prominent nutrition experts think so (and there are criticisms from other nutrition experts to this argument).
With improper meal choices, parents can increase the risks for a wide range of cardiac, respiratory, and immunological disorders by an order of
magnitude or more.
And what is to be said of the many working men out there who are preyed upon by their wives - cooking unhealthy meals and literally pinning them to
their recliners after work (when proper meals would offer them increased energy levels, better alertness, and keener performance overall)? Should
someone not take up defense of this group that is unable to adequately defend itself?
It was this same line of logic that led to the banning of abortion. "Who is going to protect the unborn people?"
The problem is that a fetus, baby, and even young children - are not "people." We may look upon them as people because of the potential to
become a person
- but we do not actually see a person before us when we address them in the present. We defer behavior of the child to the
parents. We defer the wealth of a child to the parents. For many years after birth - we still treat a child as an extension of their parents.
Parents make many arbitrary decisions on behalf of a child. While a child has its own internal biases due to genetics and sex; the parents literally
make choices based on who they want to see that child become. Similarly, society looks this way upon children. We do not often blame a child for
unwarranted violence toward others (as we would an adult). We attempt to instill within them a sense of morality based upon the type of individual we
would prefer to interact with.
This is the entire sociological and legal concept behind adulthood. Criminal behavior in a child ("breaking the rules") is quite universally seen
as a need to further shape that child's behavior away from such tendencies. Criminal behavior in an adult is seen as grounds to remove that
individual from society - via confinement, exile, or execution.
We recognize that, at some point, our neurology becomes far less plastic; no longer responding as well to the views of others. We become our own
individuals, far more set in our tendencies than even just a few years ago. Yet, even that individuality is something of an illusion. We were
largely influenced by the world around us. Our parents (both in nurture and genetics) were responsible for stimulating our development. Society also
played a role in stimulating the development into a form that would eventually gain an awareness that solidified its identity.
But that identity is much the product of other factors well beyond that individual's control. The idea of a self-made personality is a fallacy.