"I'll say it again in the land of the free. Freedom of choice...is what you got." Those words come from the title track of the album "Freedom of Choice" released by the new wave musical group Devo in 1980, about the same time I graduated from high school. (Yeah, I'm that old.) But those words ring as true in my ears today as they did in those of the founders of our country who wrote the Constitution. America is a country based on freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of action, but it seems over-regulation and the personal pursuits of a few seek to take away the freedom of choice by many.
Here's one simple example. The watchdog group Corporate Accountability International wants to retire Ronald McDonald. It claims the long-time face of McDonald's draws children to obesity the way Joe Camel lured kids to smoking, so it took out a number of advertisements in major newspapers to call for his dismissal. I get the point. I used to beg my mother to buy (Sugar) Frosted Flakes when I was a kid, in part, because I loved Tony the Tiger. But more than that, I loved the cereal and still do to this day. Does it have sugar in it? Yes. Is that bad for me? Some will argue that it is, but that's not the point. The issue is I have the freedom to do what I choose and then let the consequences follow. In a recent issue of the Wall Street Journal, Al Lewis wrote, "To blame Ronald for lifetime addictions to high-fat, highly processed foods is to deny personal responsibility. And if they get Ronald, who is next? Chuck E. Cheese, the plastic-faced Burger King and that pigtailed brat, Wendy."
If I chose to sit on the curb in front of my house and jam a screwdriver into my ear, shouldn't I be able to do that? Sure, it would hurt like heck and I'd have to go to the hospital and may lose my hearing or suffer other consequences, but isn't that my freedom of choice?
Okay, that's kind of an extreme example, but here's another one in my opinion. San Francisco, the city that already infamously outlawed the McDonald's Happy Meal, is on the verge of another freedom-limiting fiasco. A man named Lloyd Schofield gathered 12,000 signatures to achieve his goal of putting a ban on circumcision on the November municipal ballot. He says it is a form of mutilation.
Lloyd Schofield |
"The foreskin is there for a reason," said Schofield. "It's not a birth defect. It serves an important function in a man's life, and nobody has a right to perform unnecessary surgery on another human being."
The ban would make it a crime for the procedure to take place on anyone under the age of 18. If found guilty, the person who performs the circumcision would face a misdemeanor charge and pay up to $1,000 or serve a maximum of a year in jail. Some doctors say circumcision reduces the risk of infection. Others do not. It is a prevalent procedure in the United States and important ritual in many religions, especially for Jews and Muslims.
No comments:
Post a Comment