Generally speaking, banning things doesn't make them go away, and it doesn't make them safer. This is the argument that is usually advanced - and I think the only convincing argument - to support the legalisation of abortion. Banning abortion does not prevent it from occurring - it just meant that desperate women seek unsafe and illegal remedies to terminate their pregnancies. We might not approve of the decision to abort an unborn child, but at least women can now do it safely without fear of their own lives. It is also the argument advanced by gun-rights advocates who resist restrictions on the ownership of fire arms: they claim that 'if guns are criminalised, only criminals will have guns.' And there is certainly a point there, even if the argument is sometimes used dishonestly (and in apparent conflict with the anti-government and anti-state rhetoric of many of the same people). Barriers to immigration - even very physical, material barriers - are notoriously ineffective, and only make journeys across borders more dangerous and more covert. Drugs and alcohol do not disappear when they are prohibited. Nor does child pornography, which is apparently ubiquitous despite the best efforts of state and international law-enforcement agencies to suppress it with all the punitive force at their command. Prostitution continues in countries - like Sweden - that have criminalised paying for sex, but it is on the whole more dangerous and prostitutes are far more marginalised. On its own, banning stuff seems to be an inefficient way to deal with problems. In extreme cases it may be necessary, but where people really want - or need - to do something, they'll find a way to do it anyway. Jews believe that they must circumcise their baby boys on the eighth day of life, and if the state doesn't let them do it legally and safely, they will do it illegally and unsafely. Personally, I'd rather the state legislated that a physician must always supervise a circumcision carried out by a religious authority. I prefer such things to happen openly and in the public square rather than cloaked in fear and secrecy. We might also want to ask ourselves just how comfortable we are with the idea of the state commandeering decisions about the welfare of children, about cultural traditions and arbitrating harms and benefits in human relationships. Most of us are a bit sceptical about the ability of the state to do this - why is the issue of circumcision different? |