One of the points that I believe was not made on the first round of
discussion was that, if parents have the right to make decisions for
their children, they also bear some liability for the consequences. If
children could sue, either as children or later as adults, that would
tend to constrain unnecessary procedures on infants or young
children-for whom, for example, the benefit regarding HIV prevention is
largely irrelevant.
It could, of course, work the other way around. Parents would get sued for NOT taking the responsibility of having medical procedures done! BTW, where are these children getting the money to sue their parents?
Marcy
Yes, parents could be sued either way. This seems like the sort of
issue where case law would develop fairly quickly, though off the top of
my head I don't have a clear sense of what it might look like; and that
would tend to shape parental decisions.
I was thinking of a libertarian society, where children would be allowed
to work.
Interesting points for philosophical discussion, which help make this list as interesting as it is! However, I am the pragmatic type, and often find myself like a fish out of water when attempting to grasp imagined alternate universes. For example, I do not know any children who could do work that would allow them to pay an attorney $300 per hour to sue anyone. The alternative would be for "children's advocates", such as the myriad government "child protective agencies", or perhaps pimps of all sorts, to finance the endeavor. (I will go back to the Activists List now, and deal with stuff I can handle!)
Marcy
Perhaps they could intern for the attorney and do a work-trade arrangement. And of course some lawyers take cases on a contingency fee basis. People have been known to pay a lot of money to adopt kids, and if children themselves were allowed to receive these payments, instead of other parties profiting by their sale -- err, adoption -- then a minor's lawsuit filed in the context of seeking a "divorce" from parents could make financial sense from an attorney's perspective.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Hi Starchild and All! I missed out on the last discussion of this issue, but
now I would like to throw my two cents worth in. This ballot measure has been
bugging me since I first heard about it a few months ago. This ban measure is
all about The Nanny State all over again--nothing more. This measure seeks to
reduce freedom, not increase it. The only people who should be deciding if
their son is to be circumcised or not are the parents, not the busybodies down
the street. There are good points to be made on both sides of the issue, and
parents should be free to absorb all the information and decide what's best for
the child. It should not be up The Nanny State to dictate "one size fits all"
and implement that decision for each family. The current system has worked fine
for generations--if you want to keep the skin, then you keep it, but if you
choose to have it snipped, then you have it done without being threatened at the
point of a gun (one year in jail/fine of $1,000). Parents should be able to
choose either option--this ballot measure says no, only one way is right. The
Nanny State at its ugliest.
Now, as for the rights of children, their rights are few and far between. Other
than life threatening situations (say, denying a blood transfusion for religious
reasons, hitting your child with a baseball bat, extreme neglect), The Nanny
State should stay out of the parenting business. Nobody knows that child better
or will ever love that child more than the parents--they are faced with many
daunting decisions to be made over the course of 18 years, and they will do the
best they can. You would no more consult with your child about circumcision
than you would ask him if he should get his shots (my son used to freak out when
he saw the needle and had to be physically held down), brush his teeth, eat his
broccoli, or go to school. You make the decisions for the child, and you take
your lumps if they weren't the best decisions. (I agree the child should be
free, when he is an adult, to sue you--whoever might be paying for the
lawyer--for past grievances.)
A final point. If this measure passes, then the next logical ballot measure by
The Nanny State will be to outlaw corporal punishment (already illegal in
Scandinavia, I believe). As a parent who has done my share of spanking, you
need to have all the resources available to discipline your children, and for
the busybodies to once again step in and tell you how to do the hardest job in
the world--it would not surprise me.
That's it!
Aubrey
Dear Aubrey,
So nice to have another member of this list who actually is a parent! I will take immense pleasure in voting "NO!" on this piece of silly business.
Interestingly, my advanced age as well as my profession as a payroll service provider, have given me an insight into the encroachment of the Nanny State into the parent-child relationship. An increasing number of hourly employees receive child subsidies from the government, in return for the government watching their every step. Thanks to these subsidies and laws such as the one being proposed, parents have lost so much of their feelings of responsibility towards their children; an increasing number of hourly workers have their payroll checks garnished for child support.
The Nanny State's objectives are clear to me -- diminish parental control in order to increase governmental control. Unfortunately the Nanny State is aided on this particular issue not only by liberals, but also by libertarians.
Marcy
Aubrey:
I am not sure I agree with your statement that this is all about the nanny
state. I think the issue is being raised by some men who were circumcised at
birth and having become adults do not wish to be for various reasons. The logic
is that the decision should be made by the man himself and not by the parents
or the medical authorities. This is not quite a libertarian issue (that is, the
state versus the individual). If a man wants to be circumcised when he comes of
age, he may have the procedure done. Does the law ban all circumcisions or
merely circumcisions at birth???
Les
Good point Les….but what about other issues like piercings? Should it be illegal for parents to allow piercing of children? If so, then what is the issue with circumcision? There sure is a lot of piercing of children these days.
What about forms of cosmetic surgery? Should a child be forced to choose whether or not they have surgery for a hair lip or cleft palate? Is it incorrect to assume that people with these conditions must have them fixed with surgery unless they approve? If so, at what age can they approve? If parents cannot approve without the approval of children then why not?
Of course, the issue here is that circumcision is religious and/or cultural….competition for the “state”. They hate that. So it is a ballot measure. Disgusting.
Mike
Sorry….I meant
Is it incorrect to assume that people with these conditions “must NOT have them fixed with surgery unless they approve? If so, at what age can they approve? If parents cannot approve without the approval of children then why not?”
Mike
Hi Mike, Les, Marcy, & All! Interesting points and questions you have all
brought up! I can't answer all the questions, but I have a few responses.
First the easy one: Les, the proposed law will ban all circumcisions for boys
under 18, but it will not ban circumcisions for adult men (18 or older), so this
is not a ban on all circumcisions. Though, with the never-idle busybodies, you
can never tell when they might decide that circumcisions are bad for all males
and come up with another proposal to ban all circumcisions period. Their work
is never done, and they are forever looking for new ways to tell us how to run
our (or our children's) lives. As for the issue of a circumcised man unhappy
about his parents' decision to have him snipped, I think it is a very valid
point. After all, it is irreversible, and the skin will not grow back like a
flower. All the more reason for the parents to do their job, weigh all the pros
and cons very seriously, and make the best decision.
I still say this is about the government versus the individual. The right to
parent the best way you can and make the best decisions for your child is an
individual right, just the same as the right to keep the fruits of your labor,
the right to worship (or not), who we want to love, and many other basic
rights. If we allow the government to tell us how to parent and what decisions
we can and can't make, then something really important has been lost. That's
what all these laws and movements lately (McDonald's toy ban, junk food/fat
taxes) have been about. They are basically saying that parents are stupid, so
the government needs to step in and fix the situation.
As for piercings and such, I do not care for them or allow my son to have them,
but I leave other parents to decide for their own children. If it is non-life
threatening, it is best left to the parents to allow or not allow. As for
cosmetic surgery, I can't imagine why any parent wouldn't make the effort to fix
something that would cause the child embarrassment when they are out in public,
but I would not force the parents to have such surgeries performed. Asking the
child for approval before performing any surgeries--that goes against every
parental bone in my body. Kids do not have too much sense, as far as I'm
concerned, and it would be silly to expect them to "see the big picture" or plan
for the long-term with their limited life experiences. The question of when
should a child have full charge of their being (and body) is an interesting one
because 18 is purely arbitrary, probably just tied to the age most kids are when
they finish high school. Some kids at 15 are more mature than many adults and,
sadly, many adults at much older ages are still making poor decisions. I think
18 is reasonable, though I doubt my own son at 18 will be mature enough to make
the best decisions.
Interesting point about the wage garnishments. I might add a cultural angle to
your point. The last company I worked for was quite a bit larger than the
company I work for now (around 150 versus around 45), but what a difference on
the number of garnishments. We got tons and tons of garnishments (and multiple
garnishments for the same employee sometimes--not sure if such individuals were
circumcised or not!) at the last company (beer distributor), but I've not heard
of even one single garnishment at the company I work for now (almost all Chinese
employees). Could this be a coincidence? I think not.
Thanks for the food for thought!
Aubrey
On Jun 8, 2011, at 2:38 AM, Aubrey Freedman wrote (in part):
As for piercings and such, I do not care for them or allow my son to have them, but I leave other parents to decide for their own children. If it is non-life threatening, it is best left to the parents to allow or not allow. As for cosmetic surgery, I can't imagine why any parent wouldn't make the effort to fix something that would cause the child embarrassment when they are out in public...
Aubrey,
What you relate about piercing raises a concern I have with opposing the circumcision ban. What if some parents likewise make circumcision decisions more out of their own sense of aesthetics, or propriety, or what-not, then out of guessing what their young children are likely to want for themselves when they are older? If parents forbid piercings, the worst-case scenario is that kids have to wait until they are 18 or independent to get them, but if parents decide to circumcise, their sons may be stuck for life with the results of parental prejudices about aesthetics or morality.
That being said, and the comparatively trivial consequences of parents forbidding piercing notwithstanding, I can well imagine that having to be out in public without piercings, if they are popular among his peers and he is not allowed to have them, *could* be quite embarrassing to your son! Getting pierced is very low-risk and essentially non-permanent, since piercings will close up and heal over time if not maintained via use, so those who get pierced and later lose their taste for it don't tend to suffer any significant negative impact. Parents wishing to spare their kids social embarrassment would be wise to allow them, imho -- though it seems reasonable to refuse to pay for piercing yourself if you find it distasteful.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Mike:
I didnt realize my post could spark such controversy!
I will have to think about the piercing issue. If I were a parent, I would not
permanently modify my child's body unless the child were of an age to discuss
the issue and give his or her consent. I don't believe the state should dictate
what that age should be.
I would not call hair lip and cleft palate surgery "cosmetic". These conditions
do cause problems eating and drinking and are unsightly....unlike circumcisions.
There is a big difference between a circumcision and cleft palate surgery.
"They hate that". Who is "they". I am sure the politicians and bureaucrats are
not the ultimate source of this issue. They, meaning the politicians and
bureaucrats, are trying to provide cover for themselves. Basically they are
saying "we will do this, IF the voters direct us to do it. Maybe, just maybe,
most politicians and bureaucrats are hoping the issue get defeated so the they
can go to the proponents and say "The majority rejected this". Go away and stop
bugging us". Clearly it is a ballot measure because the B of Supes does not want
to go out on a limb on this issue.
Les
Leslie….the reason this is about circumcision and not piercings or other forms of body modification initiated by parents, is because the real target is religion and family tradition by secularists. Judeo Christian tradition (especially Jewish) already has strong prohibitions against body piercing and tattoos. So no conflicts there. Circumcision was targeted as a way to put government directly in the way of a familial tradition and a parent’s choice about how to bring up their child. I guess if the government can tell parents that a child can’t be circumcised, then if won’t be long before the government can start telling parents what they can teach them, how to raise and discipline them…and also tell them what they can’t teach children because certain subjects might “poison their impressionable minds”. Wait….they are already doing that.
Being a parent is a huge responsibility. One of the real joys of parenting is being able to express yourself with your children and see them adopt these values and carry them forward with pride. Circumcision is one of those things in families. It’s what they do with more or less a religious affiliation. Those family and religious bonds are strong….which is why the government and secularists are attacking them with this measure.
My 2 cents worth anyways…
Mike
Hi Starchild! I agree that circumcision is a more important decision than piercing, since it is permanent. It is also true that parents often make decisions for their children based on what they (not their children) like or dislike. I'm sure I do that quite often. I'm sure my son could come up with a huge list of grievances against my unfair parental rules and regulations (I'm a Libertarian outside the house, but inside it's a different story), and since I pay the bills, I will make the critical decisions. I expect that when my son turns 18, he will run out the door and get a tattoo the very first day of adulthood (you're right--not with a penny of my money). Will I approve? No! Now he gets to make the critical decisions. I think this is fair enough.
The real question is why any of this should be the subject of a proposed law subjecting the parent to a large fine and the threat of jailtime. Allowing the government into these family matters only increases the power and role of government in our lives--something we should be moving away from.
Aubrey
Aubrey,
I certainly understand and appreciate the libertarian argument against a law banning circumcision. I think I'm leaning somewhat against the measure at this point, though I haven't decided for sure how I will vote.
I confess I do find it sad that even among libertarians there is not more respect/desire for the rights of people whom governments legally classify -- sometimes justifiably and sometimes not so justifiably -- as children. As you allude to in your comment about not being libertarian inside the house, "government" can take forms other than those which we conventionally associate with the term. For dependent children, parents are *de facto* governments. While they don't generally risk jail or fines, being grounded or having possessions temporarily confiscated are common enough. When parental controls interfere with non-aggressive choices that dependent children wish to make, especially choices that do not do significant lasting harm even to themselves, they seem to me a necessary evil at best, from a libertarian perspective.
That being said, I still support parental control over government interference at least nine times out of ten as the lesser evil. But regarding your question "why any of this should be the subject of a proposed law subjecting the parent to a large fine and the threat of jailtime?", I believe the practical answer is, "Because some folks perceive parental control as coercive or harmful enough to make government intervention desirable in their eyes." The more that parents voluntarily abstain from authoritarian methods of parenting, the weaker their case for intervention will be, just as good behavior by businesses tends to lessen the appeal of calls for more economic regulation.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))