Male Genital Mutilation

[Nearly Sane]

The mother isn't.

It's opinions like the ones on this message board I'm referring to.

Then what reason is there for the lack of action by the authorities?

[Rhiannon]

If this case comes to trial then it will equal the number of cases that have gone to trial for FGM in the U.K. One. And FGM has been illegal for thirty years.

[Bubbles]

If this case comes to trial then it will equal the number of cases that have gone to trial for FGM in the U.K. One. And FGM has been illegal for thirty years.

It's not comparable.

The problems of getting convictions isn't comparable either, it's a totally different issue.

So comparing the two, is irrelevant.

[ad_orientem]

How are they not comparable?

[Bubbles]

How are they not comparable?

I've put a link much earlier in the thread that explains why it's different.

So let's not go around in another circle.

If you want to know and discuss why FGM has been illegal for 30 years and there have been no convictions/prosecutions you need another thread to explore that, because the circumstances are very different to male circumcision.

Male circumcision isn't illegal if both parents agree, and the reasons there are no prosecutions is self evident.

[ad_orientem]

I've put a link much earlier in the thread that explains why it's different.

So let's not go around in another circle. Please explain, briefly, why they're not comparable.

No, that's not good enough. Please explain, briefly, why they're not comparable.

[Rhiannon]

It's not comparable.

The problems of getting convictions isn't comparable either, it's a totally different issue.

So comparing the two, is irrelevant.

Of course they are comparable. I agree with ad-o, you need to explain why they aren't.

[Bubbles]

No, that's not good enough. Please explain, briefly, why they're not comparable.

Because male circumcision involves removing a flap of skin that medical authorities ( like the WHO ) consider doesn't adversely affect a man, has no long term effects on his life, and in their opinion has certain medical benefits.

FGM on the other hand, is considered very damaging to a women affecting things like her ability to wee without pain, menstruate, have a normal sexual relationship with a man, and her ability to give birth naturally and may even risk her life and that of the baby.

That's briefly.

[Rhiannon]

Because male circumcision involves removing a flap of skin that medical authorities ( like the WHO ) consider doesn't adversely affect a man and in their opinion has certain medical benefits.

FGM on the other hand, is considered very damaging to a women affecting things like her ability to wee without pain, menstruate, have a normal sexual relationship with a man, and her ability to give birth naturally and may even risk the her life and that of the baby.

That's briefly.

But in both cases the procedures were carried out in dodgy circumstances. One is illegal, the other was carried out without parental consent, also illegal with conspiracy by the grandparents, also illegal. Can you explain why two illegal procedures should result in prosecution for one and not the other?

[ad_orientem]

Morally, they are equally comparable. I also posted a link earlier in the thread showing why the arguments in favour of male circumcision, including those of the WHO, are heavily biased. Anyway, I would have thought that the risk of infection, blood poisoning, and severe chaffing of the helmet were good enough reasons to make them comparable.

[Bubbles]

But in both cases the procedures were carried out in dodgy circumstances. One is illegal, the other was carried out without parental consent, also illegal with conspiracy by the grandparents, also illegal. Can you explain why two illegal procedures should result in prosecution for one and not the other?

No. Both of these should be prosecuted because both of them are illegal.

[Rhiannon]

Morally, they are equally comparable. I also posted a link earlier in the thread showing why the arguments in favour of male circumcision, including those of the WHO, are heavily biased. Anyway, I would have thought that the risk of infection, blood poisoning, and severe chaffing of the helmet were good enough reasons to make them comparable.

For me the thing that makes them comparable morally is that they are carried out on infants incapable of giving consent. And as you say, all medical procedures carry both short and long term risk. Unless essential circumcision should be a matter of choice for adults to make.

[Bubbles]

Morally, they are equally comparable. I also posted a link earlier in the thread showing why the arguments in favour of male circumcision, including those of the WHO, are heavily biased. Anyway, I would have thought that the risk of infection, blood poisoning, and severe chaffing of the helmet were good enough reasons to make them comparable.

Nope, because the risks aren't comparable and most male circumcisions are performed by someone who is qualified with the proper hygiene in place.

Most FGMs seem to be done with a razor by some family member somewhere in Africa.

[Rhiannon]

No. Both of these should be prosecuted because both of them are illegal.

So why did you say I shouldn't compare them? My post was comparing the number of prosecutions, not the nature of FGM v MGM. I agree with ad-o that MGM is wrong when carried out on infants, but that wasn't what my post was about.

[Rhiannon]

Nope, because the risks aren't comparable and most male circumcisions are performed by someone who is qualified with the proper hygiene in place.

Most FGMs seem to be done with a razor by some family member somewhere in Africa.

But there are still risks, unnecessary ones, that can cause lifelong damage and pain.

My first partner was circumcised and he was teased about it in the showers at school. It caused him both mental and physical problems. Something that was totally unnecessary and avoidable.

[Bubbles]

But there are still risks, unnecessary ones, that can cause lifelong damage and pain.

My first partner was circumcised and he was teased about it in the showers at school. It caused him both mental and physical problems. Something that was totally unnecessary and avoidable.

The school should have dealt with that, some boys are circumcised because of medical reasons and being teased isn't acceptable, whatever the reason it's done.

[Shaker]

The school should have dealt with that, some boys are circumcised because of medical reasons and being teased isn't acceptable, whatever the reason it's done.

Nobody on this thread objects to circumcision carried out for legitimate medical reasons.

Paying attention to all the posts in the thread would have apprised you of this some considerable time ago.

[Gordon]

The school should have dealt with that, some boys are circumcised because of medical reasons and being teased isn't acceptable, whatever the reason it's done.

Where it is done for medical reasons this will be on a case-by-case basis on the basis of each specific medical need.

However, and since circumcision isn't routine 'best practice' following the birth of boys here in the UK, then 'medical reasons' fails as a defence for mutilating babies since, otherwise, most males in the UK would be circumcised soon after birth, and this isn't the case.

So, this barbarism is primarily a consequence of adherence to religious/cultural superstitions and has no place in an allegedly civilised society.
 

[Shaker]

Where it is done for medical reasons this will be on a case-by-case basis on the basis of each specific medical need.

However, and since circumcision isn't routine 'best practice' following the birth of boys here in the UK, then 'medical reasons' fails as a defence for mutilating babies since, otherwise, most males in the UK would be circumcised soon after birth, and this isn't the case.

So, this barbarism is primarily a consequence of adherence to religious/cultural superstitions and has no place in an allegedly civilised society.

That about tops it for me.

[Bubbles]

Nobody on this thread objects to circumcision carried out for legitimate medical reasons.

Paying attention to all the posts in the thread would have apprised you of this some considerable time ago.

I had noted it, but my point was no child should be teased about it in school.

[Gordon]

I had noted it, but my point was no child should be teased about it in school.

Easily sorted: ensure that bits of baby boys aren't routinely removed unless there are immediate and compelling medical reasons.

[Bubbles]

Where it is done for medical reasons this will be on a case-by-case basis on the basis of each specific medical need.

However, and since circumcision isn't routine 'best practice' following the birth of boys here in the UK, then 'medical reasons' fails as a defence for mutilating babies since, otherwise, most males in the UK would be circumcised soon after birth, and this isn't the case.

So, this barbarism is primarily a consequence of adherence to religious/cultural superstitions and has no place in an allegedly civilised society.

That's the problem Gordon, you think people practicing their religion is barbaric and there is no place for them in your sort of "so called"  civilised society.

Well society is made up of all sorts of people.

Tolerance in diversity is learning to live with people that are different to yourself with out judging them as barbaric.

They are not, just different.

[Bubbles]

Easily sorted: ensure that bits of baby boys aren't routinely removed unless there are immediate and compelling medical reasons.

No.

It's a religious requirement for some groups, medical evidence shows it isn't harmful.

What needs to happen, is that you need to accept diversity, become more tolerant of the ways of others and stop insulting them by calling them barbaric because they won't conform to the things that are important to you.

We share society with a range of different people, with different ideas of what is important.

Tolerance is accepting this, within the law.

[Shaker]

No.

It's a religious requirement for some groups

Which is no reason at all for sane people.

What needs to happen, is that you need to accept diversity, become more tolerant of the ways of others and stop insulting them by calling them barbaric because they won't conform to the things that are important to you.

What's important to me is not sucking up to the irrational barbarism of barbarians and calling it diversity and tolerance.

[Gordon]

That's the problem Gordon, you think people practicing their religion is barbaric and there is no place for them in your sort of "so called"  civilised society.

Well society is made up of all sorts of people.

Tolerance in diversity is learning to live with people that are different to yourself with out judging them as barbaric.

They are not, just different.

If their religious traditions involve mutilating babies then I say let's be intolerant of these barbaric traditions.