MNT Contributor asks: "Should we soften our approach to female genital mutilation?"

[Deleted]

Link

"A paper published this week in the Journal of Medical Ethics asks whether some forms of female genital mutilation should be legalized in America. They argue that not allowing minor versions of the operation is a form of cultural prejudice.

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a hot topic and a subject that insights anger, confusion and distress.

In many countries, the practice is extremely prevalent and shows little sign of slowing. In Egypt, for instance, between 2006-2011, the percentage of girls undergoing FGM only dropped from 77.8% to 71.6%.

In one study conducted in Somalia, 81% of subjects underwent infibulation (complete excision of the clitoris, labia minora, and most of the labia majora) and only 3% did not have any form of FGM.

A recent paper - written by Dr. Kavita Shah Arora, from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, and Allen J. Jacobs, from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stony Brook University, NY - puts a new slant on the difficult topic."

[Venant]

Link

A paper published this week in the Journal of Medical Ethics asks whether some forms of female genital mutilation should be legalized in America. They argue that not allowing minor versions of the operation is a form of cultural prejudice.

The United States has the highest rate of male genital mutilation among first world countries, so in the spirit of equality for women we should totally support this.

[SuRXIII]

Regressives in action

[Venant]

I at least appreciate the pragmatic focus of her argument.

Well, if we accept male genital mutilation as a society, why shouldn't we accept the same for females?

[Icuren]

Well, if we accept male genital mutilation as a society, why shouldn't we accept the same for females?

To make it to the same degree of mutilation, we'd need to be chopping off dicks and balls.

I don't agree with circumcision (I feel that's a chose someone needs to make when they are older) but stop thinking the two are any bit equal in the degree of harm.

Oh and of course the obligatory:

[Stormdash]

Surrender to barbarism is all it is. When you have lost the moral clarity to oppose it, you'll do what you can to rationalize. That includes, by the way, the intellectually bankrupt comparison to circumcision. Whether you find it medically obsolete or not, there was never any venal or malicious purpose to it. FGM is to control and oppress women by rendering them incapable of experiencing sexual pleasure, period. There is no defense of it possible in a civilized society, it is barbaric, it is depraved, it has no more place in the modern world than did the practice of suttee when the British put an end to it when they controlled India.

[Wyrt]

Well, if we accept male genital mutilation as a society, why shouldn't we accept the same for females?

Because circumcision is drastically different? The foreskin isn't where sexual pleasure comes from for males.

[Underverse]

Yes, it's a form of cultural prejudice. Is there something wrong with that? Or do all ideas now hold equal value?

[Deleted]

Link

"A paper published this week in the Journal of Medical Ethics asks whether some forms of female genital mutilation should be legalized in America. They argue that not allowing minor versions of the operation is a form of cultural prejudice.

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a hot topic and a subject that insights anger, confusion and distress.

In many countries, the practice is extremely prevalent and shows little sign of slowing. In Egypt, for instance, between 2006-2011, the percentage of girls undergoing FGM only dropped from 77.8% to 71.6%.

In one study conducted in Somalia, 81% of subjects underwent infibulation (complete excision of the clitoris, labia minora, and most of the labia majora) and only 3% did not have any form of FGM.

A recent paper - written by Dr. Kavita Shah Arora, from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, and Allen J. Jacobs, from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stony Brook University, NY - puts a new slant on the difficult topic."

Everything about it should be just as legal as circumcision as far as I'm concerned.

[Grimbold21]

Link

[I]"A paper published this week in the Journal of Medical Ethics asks whether some forms of female genital mutilation should be legalized in America. They argue that not allowing minor versions of the operation is a form of cultural prejudice.

The only 2 phrases that matter here.

[Deleted]

Because circumcision is drastically different? The foreskin isn't where sexual pleasure comes from for males.

No, the foreskin protects the bit that do.
also it actually is, but whatever.

[Deleted]

Cultural or religious genital mutilation, whether it's female genital mutilation, or circumcision, should be banned and illegal.

[Deleted]

Surrender to barbarism is all it is. When you have lost the moral clarity to oppose it, you'll do what you can to rationalize. That includes, by the way, the intellectually bankrupt comparison to circumcision. Whether you find it medically obsolete or not, there was never any venal or malicious purpose to it. FGM is to control and oppress women by rendering them incapable of experiencing sexual pleasure, period.

Its entire American toehold is due to the Christian sections wanting boys to not masturbate - The comparison is almost exactly spot on.
Also, FGM in the places where it is practiced, is virtually always done by women, for women - there is no patriarchal conspiracy, just girls mothers thinking they are doing the best thing for their daughters - So there is no venal or malicious purpose to it either.

[Icuren]

No, the foreskin protects the bit that do.
also it actually is, but whatever.

And the labia does what...?

[Venant]

To make it to the same degree of mutilation, we'd need to be chopping off dicks and balls.

I don't agree with circumcision (I feel that's a chose someone needs to make when they are older) but stop thinking the two are any bit equal in the degree of harm.

I think I'll just let your double think speak for itself

Really hate how people think "Well someone else has had it worse!"

[Wyrt]

No, the foreskin protects the bit that do.
also it actually is, but whatever.

Protection from what? Do you often find yourself running around without pants or something?

[GodlyBob]

To make it to the same degree of mutilation, we'd need to be chopping off dicks and balls.

I don't agree with circumcision (I feel that's a chose someone needs to make when they are older) but stop thinking the two are any bit equal in the degree of harm.

Oh and of course the obligatory:

To be fair, there are different types of both female and male circumcision. Removal of the clitoris in women is dramatic, but so is subcision in males. There are direct parallels in harm if we're actually comparing similar procedures rather than just one, mostly benign type, or to one ostensibly harmful type.

This of course does not mean i'm in favor of allowing the procedure to be carried out on either males or females, but it's important to understand the implications, both extreme and moderate, of both.

[Icuren]

Point to me where I said I agreed to either.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Man, they should learn how to write "incite"

And no, we shouldn't. Any form of surgery where you're chopping bits off people without their consent purely for cosmetic reasons or tradition should only be allowed if the person receiving the surgery has the legal capacity to make their own choice (i.e. 18 or older, and of their own volition without pressure from other people).

[Deleted]

And the labia does what...?

He rejected the comparison, i pointed out their are very similar, and you are what?
Thinking the words you are looking for is, agreeing with me?

- - - Updated - - -

Protection from what? Do you often find yourself running around without pants or something?

No, the constant exposure to air dries and numbs your glans.