Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=a0f1c0cf-2452-42eb-bf75-b56f354f9dce&k=84150

FGM may be legalized in the very near future, already there is chatter among the crypto communists that dominate academia that Female Genital Mutilation should be tolerated in the name of diversity.

Their defense is that if the government of Canada doesn't allow it, then the practice might be performed by ill-equipped immigrants, which could lead to botched clitoredectomies, infections etc.

Plus, isn't intolerance for FGM... somehow... a little RACIST?

Surely Canada will benefit from the strength of this type of diversity!

And Why stop there? We should overturn the decision on Sharia and let some communities in the GTA and other "brown" areas expand the list of wondrous cultural customs to include ritual stoning, honor killings, child slavery... stoning of catholics, jews and all infidels...

In a multicultural, multiracial, multireligious we must respect all traditions!!! Live with it bigots!

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=a0f1c0cf-2452-42eb-bf75-b56f354f9dce&k=84150

FGM may be legalized in the very near future, already there is chatter among the crypto communists that dominate academia that Female Genital Mutilation should be tolerated in the name of diversity.

Live with it bigots!

You can be sure of one thing....no one will ever accuse you of honesty or the desire to stimulate intelligence debate...

Although not prepared to defend what she calls FGC,...

"It isn't a happy situation by any means. I wouldn't want it to continue. But I think that up until this point, the West has not been particularly helpful in the way that it's gone about trying to assist in the eradication," Prof. Boddy says....

Rather, the West must support local counsellors (she names the international women's rights organization Rainbo as one) working on the ground with women to change their notions of marriageability....

The human rights group Amnesty International considers FGM a form of violence against women, and the end result of discriminatory attitudes and beliefs...

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can be sure of one thing....no one will ever accuse you of honesty or the desire to stimulate intelligence debate...

Dancer,Lictor probably will get another vacation for this,mainly because he simply cannot bring up a potential serious subject without interjecting his own racial heirarchical views...

However...

It would be wise of us in the West to ask ouselves how far we are prepared to go,as it relates to the questions of moral and cultural relativism that SOME on the left have no question about?

Edited by Jack Weber
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be wise of us in the West to ask ouselves how far we are prepared to go,as it relates to the questions of moral and cultural relativism that SOME on the left have no question about?

In the context of FGM and judging by some of the body piercing that's being done these days, I'd say that ship has probably long since sailed.

As for questioning the moral and cultural relativism of the left - the right is no better positioned to do that than it is when trying to explain their own.

Show me a social engineer and I'll show you a moral one. Same bucket, different shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the context of FGM and judging by some of the body piercing that's being done these days, I'd say that ship has probably long since sailed.

As for questioning the moral and cultural relativism of the left - the right is no better positioned to do that than it is when trying to explain their own.

Show me a social engineer and I'll show you a moral one. Same bucket, different shit.

I'm not certain I would equate a body piercing with the rutualized removal of a females clitoris,however,I see your point.

And agreed on the ideological positionings,however...

I'm not hearing about alot of FGM in Stockholm,Sweden...Or Montevideo,Uruguay...Or Tegucigalpa,Honduras...or Johannesburg,South Africa...

Just sayin'...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, to me this isn't really so much an issue of religious freedom as it is of the freedom of individual parents to decide certain things for their children at a young age. My initial inclination is to let these people do what they want to their own children provided that it does not cause serious health risks/issues. Any procedure that does cause a serious adverse impact on health should be banned, unless performed on a consenting adult.

Oh and this is hardly a left wing position, most of you know I'm about as far from the left as it gets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, to me this isn't really so much an issue of religious freedom as it is of the freedom of individual parents to decide certain things for their children at a young age. My initial inclination is to let these people do what they want to their own children provided that it does not cause serious health risks/issues. Any procedure that does cause a serious adverse impact on health should be banned, unless performed on a consenting adult.

Oh and this is hardly a left wing position, most of you know I'm about as far from the left as it gets.

I had the great misfortune of seeing a documentary on this subject about 15 years ago.It was very graphic.If you saw that,and understand the reasoning for the procedures,you might have a different point of view.

Edited by Jack Weber
Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, to me this isn't really so much an issue of religious freedom as it is of the freedom of individual parents to decide certain things for their children at a young age. My initial inclination is to let these people do what they want to their own children provided that it does not cause serious health risks/issues.

If a procedure designed to cripple a person's ability to enjoy sexual intercourse isn't a "serious health risk/issue", then what meets the criteria, in your opinion?

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a procedure designed to cripple a person's ability to enjoy sexual intercourse isn't a "serious health risk/issue", then what meets the criteria, in your opinion?

-k

I'm not sure, I'm not an expert in that field. If the procedure is determined to be a serious health risk/issue by scientists qualified to make that determination, then, like I said, I think it should be banned.

My opinion would be that if the only effect is that it reduces the person's ability to enjoy sex, that is not necessarily a "health" effect. Additionally, there seems to be some evidence that it does not necessarily cripple a person's ability to enjoy sex:

The effect of FGC on a woman's sexual experience varies depending on many factors. FGC does not eliminate all sexual pleasure for all women who undergo the procedure, but it does reduce the likelihood of orgasm (which may be the intended objective of the procedure).[citation needed] Stimulation of the clitoris is not solely responsible for the sexual excitement and arousal of a woman during intercourse; this involves a complex series of nerve endings being activated and stimulated in and around her vagina, vulva (labia minora and majora), cervix, uterus and clitoris, with psychological response and mindset also playing a role.[63][64]

Lightfoot-Klein (1989) studied circumcised and infibulated females in Sudan, stating, "Contrary to expectations, nearly 90% of all women interviewed said that they experienced orgasm (climax) or had at various periods of their marriage experienced it. Frequency ranged from always to rarely." Lightfoot-Klein stated that the quality of orgasm varied from intense and prolonged, to weak or difficult to achieve.[65]

A study in 2006 found that in some infibulated women, some erectile tissue fundamental to producing pleasure had not been completely excised.[66] Defibulation of subjects revealed that a part of or the whole of the clitoris was underneath the scar of infibulation. The study found that sexual pleasure and orgasm are still possible after infibulation, and that they rely heavily on cultural influences — when mutilation is lived as a positive experience, orgasm is more likely. When FGC is experienced as traumatic, its frequency drops. The study suggested that FGC women who did not suffer from long-term health consequences and are in a good and fulfilling relationship may enjoy sex, and women who suffered from sexual dysfunction as a result of FGC have a right to sex therapy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting#Sexual_effects

Of course there are other health effects potentially to be considered, such as, according to wikipedia:

Other serious long term health effects are also common. These include urinary and reproductive tract infections, caused by obstructed flow of urine and menstrual blood, various forms of scarring and infertility. Epidermal inclusion cysts may form and expand, particularly in procedures affecting the clitoris. These cysts can grow over time and can become infected, requiring medical attention such as drainage.[45] The first episode of sexual intercourse will often be extremely painful for infibulated women, who will need the labia majora to be opened, to allow their partner access to the vagina. This second cut, sometimes performed by the partner with a knife, can cause other complications to arise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting#Medical_consequences

But, like I said, I'm no expert on the topic. Perhaps the procedure can be carried out in such a way as to avoid most of the health risks involved. If, for example, it could be made as safe as male circumcision should it still be banned? I would say no.

My motivation in saying this has nothing to do with thinking FGM is a good idea. Personally I find it abhorrent. However, I also believe that individuals have the right to make their own choices, and in the case of parents, they have the right to make certain choices for their young children. The state should only intervene when those choices lead to significant harm. A reduction in sexual enjoyment, if that was the only risk, is not something I would necessarily classify as significant enough harm that the state should have the power to intervene.

Perhaps I am letting my individualist ideology go too far on this issue in preventing me from plainly cheering the banning of this abhorrent practice, but I cherish individual rights and the limitations of the powers of the state to interfere in parent's decisions more than I cherish the sexual enjoyment experienced by the children of uneducated savages.

Edited by Bonam
Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps I am letting my individualist ideology go too far on this issue in preventing me from plainly cheering the banning of this abhorrent practice, but I cherish individual rights and the limitations of the powers of the state to interfere in parent's decisions more than I cherish the sexual enjoyment experienced by the children of uneducated savages.

Someone's right to rear their children as they wish does not grant the right to cause permanent injury or disability to their offspring.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the state should outlaw FGM on kids and they should advertise our societies deep disgust for the practice. If the parents don't like it, too bad.

Screw what the crypto morons that dominate academia think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone's right to rear their children as they wish does not grant the right to cause permanent injury or disability to their offspring.

-k

That likely needs to be tested in the courts, though. Male circumcision seems to still be a-ok with everyone, as in no one is talking about curtailing parents' rights to have this done to their child.

Edited by Michael Hardner
Link to post
Share on other sites

That likely needs to be tested in the courts, though. Male circumcision seems to still be a-ok with everyone, as in no one is talking about curtailing parents' rights to have this done to their child.

Let's talk about it then. Fair is fair after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That likely needs to be tested in the courts, though. Male circumcision seems to still be a-ok with everyone, as in no one is talking about curtailing parents' rights to have this done to their child.

http://www.canadiancrc.com/Circumcision_Genital_Mutilation_Male-Female_Children.aspx

male circumcision is on its way out (and that a good thing too)- penis clipping is an appalling act of barbarism that should have no place in a civilized society.

Circumcision of Males / Male Genital Mutilation (MGM)

"It is the position of the Canadian Children's Rights Council that "circumcision" of male or female children is genital mutilation of children."

The position of the Canadian Children's Rights Council

The Canadian Children's Rights Council position is that there is no medical benefit to the routine genital mutilation (circumcision) of any children (defined by U.N. as those under 18 years of age). Further, all Canadian children, both male and female, should be protected by the criminal laws of Canada with regards to this aggravated assault. Currently, the protection provided by the Criminal Code of Canada includes only genital mutilation (circumcision) of female children.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, to me this isn't really so much an issue of religious freedom as it is of the freedom of individual parents to decide certain things for their children at a young age.

parent's right to decide certain things...

you mean the right to decide to blunt and injure their children for a lifetime. That's an interesting interpretation of the Charter...

Parent's individual freedoms trump personal safety and wellbeing of child...

what if the parents decide to lock off a foot for esthetic reasons?

As long as we're drifting into insane moral relativism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Parent's individual freedoms trump personal safety and wellbeing of child...

what if the parents decide to lock off a foot for esthetic reasons?

Like I said, if the safety of the child is really endangered by the procedure, it should indeed be banned. If the procedure can be performed safely, which I don't know whether it can or not, then the state in my opinion should have no right to intervene. Removing a foot is much more of a black and white issue since it leaves the person in question disabled. Meanwhile, a reduction in sexual pleasure is not necessarily a disability. Obviously the more extreme forms of FGM really do leave the female seriously damaged and should be banned, but some of the less extreme forms I would say are not necessarily disabling in nature, based on my quick read of the wikipedia article on the subject.

As I mentioned before, I could be wrong. If experts conclude that all forms really are significantly harmful in nature then it should be banned.

male circumcision is on its way out (and that a good thing too)- penis clipping is an appalling act of barbarism that should have no place in a civilized society.

Male circumcision is allowed and should be allowed because it does not cause any serious health risks or adverse effects to the child. Some would argue it has certain benefits as well, but whether that is true or not, as long as it does not have serious adverse effects, the state should not be intervening.

The reality is people will soon have the option of potentially having many more optional procedures done on their children at a young age. With advances in biotechnology, nanotechnology, and genetic engineering, it will be technically possible to modify children/fetuses in some way to emphasize or de-emphasize certain traits or features. Obviously, parents would likely want to apply beneficial modifications, but what is considered beneficial varies on an individual basis. Should parents have the right to make such choices, when it comes to genetic engineering, implants, etc? This could be a major topic of debate in ethics and law over the next few decades. The precedent we set now is important.

Edited by Bonam
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, if the safety of the child is really endangered by the procedure, it should indeed be banned. If the procedure can be performed safely, which I don't know whether it can or not, then the state in my opinion should have no right to intervene. Removing a foot is much more of a black and white issue since it leaves the person in question disabled. Meanwhile, a reduction in sexual pleasure is not necessarily a disability. Obviously the more extreme forms of FGM really do leave the female seriously damaged and should be banned, but some of the less extreme forms I would say are not necessarily disabling in nature, based on my quick read of the wikipedia article on the subject.

As I mentioned before, I could be wrong. If experts conclude that all forms really are significantly harmful in nature then it should be banned.

I think the circumcision of a child that deliberately or knowingly results in their losing the opportunity to enjoy sex as an adult is just plain wrong. It alters a human being's biological nature not just their body. This seems to be the intent of the most controversial type of circumcision and as such it should be banned.

Male circumcision is allowed and should be allowed because it does not cause any serious health risks or adverse effects to the child. Some would argue it has certain benefits as well, but whether that is true or not, as long as it does not have serious adverse effects, the state should not be intervening.

It's obviously on a completely different plane in terms of impact and really has little if any bearing on the intent of FGM Sharia style.

The reality is people will soon have the option of potentially having many more optional procedures done on their children at a young age. With advances in biotechnology, nanotechnology, and genetic engineering, it will be technically possible to modify children/fetuses in some way to emphasize or de-emphasize certain traits or features. Obviously, parents would likely want to apply beneficial modifications, but what is considered beneficial varies on an individual basis. Should parents have the right to make such choices, when it comes to genetic engineering, implants, etc? This could be a major topic of debate in ethics and law over the next few decades. The precedent we set now is important.

I think we should set the precedent that superstitious motivations for altering our children's bodies are probably really bad reasons for doing so. Any modifications that we do make should be carefully screened for these and dealt with accordingly and appropriately by reasoned experts and doctors etc. I'd like to see a public education campaign that communicates that this should be and will be public policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TrueMetis

That likely needs to be tested in the courts, though. Male circumcision seems to still be a-ok with everyone, as in no one is talking about curtailing parents' rights to have this done to their child.

No it's not a-ok. A lof of people are against it just a much as they are against FGM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That likely needs to be tested in the courts, though. Male circumcision seems to still be a-ok with everyone, as in no one is talking about curtailing parents' rights to have this done to their child.

You can't beat up your kids, you can't decide your kids aren't going to get an education, you can't raise your kids on booze and drugs. Your right to raise your children as you wish is not absolute. If the government can take away someone's children for irresponsible parenting, then surely the government can take away someone's children to prevent the infliction of grievous medical harm. I don't even think it's a question.

And if you're attempting to equate male circumcision with FGM, I think you're horribly mistaken.

My personal research on the subject indicates that circumcised men have no difficulty achieving orgasm and enjoy sex immensely. (For those favoring a more scholarly approach, I recall reading that the effect of circumcision on male enjoyment of sex is a very minor loss of sensitivity due to the thickening of skin on the head of the penis that occurs due to the loss of the protection of the foreskin.)

If you can find me some religion or cult or tribe whose practice is to amputate the whole head of the penis, I'd view that as a reasonable analog to FGM (and I'd be all for banning it, btw.)

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TrueMetis

Male circumcision reduces the chances of contracting AIDS.

link

Condoms work better and don't require cutting of skin containing tens of thousands of nerves. Anyway cutting off a womens breasts would reduce the chance of breast cancer but we don't consider that.

Oh and from the Wiki.

Over forty observational studies have been conducted to investigate the relationship between circumcision and HIV infection.[154] Reviews of these studies have reached differing conclusions about whether circumcision could be used as a prevention method against HIV.[155][156][157][158]

Experimental evidence was needed to establish a causal relationship between lack of circumcision and HIV, so three randomized controlled trials were commissioned as a means to reduce the effect of any confounding factors.[158] Trials took place in South Africa,[159] Kenya[160] and Uganda.[161] All three trials were stopped early by their monitoring boards on ethical grounds, because those in the circumcised group had a lower rate of HIV contraction than the control group.[160] The results showed that circumcision reduced vaginal-to-penile transmission of HIV by 60%, 53%, and 51%, respectively.[162] A meta-analysis of the African randomised controlled trials found that the risk in circumcised males was 0.44 times that in uncircumcised males, and that 72 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent one HIV infection. The authors also stated that using circumcision as a means to reduce HIV infection would, on a national level, require consistently safe sexual practices to maintain the protective benefit.[163]

As a result of these findings, the WHO and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) stated that male circumcision is an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention but should be carried out by well trained medical professionals and under conditions of informed consent.[8][13][164] Both the WHO and CDC indicate that circumcision may not reduce HIV transmission from men to women, and that data is lacking for the transmission rate of men who engage in anal sex with a female partner.[13][14] The joint WHO/UNAIDS recommendation also notes that circumcision only provides partial protection from HIV and should never replace known methods of HIV prevention. Male Circumcision Clearinghouse website was formed by WHO, UNAIDS, FHI and AVAC to provide current evidence-based guidance, information and resources to support the delivery of safe male circumcision services in countries that choose to scale up male circumcision as one component of comprehensive HIV prevention services. [165],[166]

Circumcision has been judged by the WHO to be a cost-effective method to reduce the spread of HIV in a population,[8] though not necessarily more cost-effective than condoms.[8][167] Some have challenged the validity of the African randomized controlled trials, prompting a number of researchers to question the effectiveness of circumcision as an HIV prevention strategy.[168][169]

In addition to the studies which provided information about female-to-male transmission, some studies have addressed other transmission routes. A randomised controlled trial in Uganda found that male circumcision did not reduce male to female transmission of HIV. The authors could not rule out the possibility of higher risk of transmission from men who did not wait for the wound to fully heal before engaging in intercourse.[170] A meta-analysis of data from fifteen observational studies of men who have sex with men found "insufficient evidence that male circumcision protects against HIV infection or other STIs."[171]

My link

Essentially when it comes done to it there have been so many conlficting studies you can't say for certain that circumcision reduces the chance of being infected with HIV.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Condoms work better and don't require cutting of skin containing tens of thousands of nerves.
Not having sex works even better. People cut skin off containing 'tens of thousands of nerves' all of the time (warts, skin tags).
Anyway cutting off a womens breasts would reduce the chance of breast cancer but we don't consider that.
Rediculous analogies do not help your case. The fact that majority of adult men who have been circumsized do not feel they have been 'damaged' is pretty strong evidence that the procedure is not something law makers should worry about.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TrueMetis

Not having sex works even better. People cut skin off containing 'tens of thousands of nerves' all of the time (warts, skin tags).

Warts don't contain nerves its the skin around the warts that have nerves. Neither do skin tags.

Warts

Warts do not cause pain because warts contain no nerves.

Skin tags

As for skin tags themselves, the growths don't contain nerves, cartilage or

bone, so removal shouldn't really hurt.

Removing anything that contains nerves it incredibly painful they why the don't often do it and use anesthesia when they do. Anyway now who making "Rediculous analogies" comparing warts and skin tags to the end of a persons penis?

Rediculous analogies do not help your case. The fact that majority of adult men who have been circumsized do not feel they have been 'damaged' is pretty strong evidence that the procedure is not something law makers should worry about.

The fact that most men aren't circumsized says otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dancer,Lictor probably will get another vacation for this,mainly because he simply cannot bring up a potential serious subject without interjecting his own racial heirarchical views...

Did someone make "racial hierarchical views" against the rules here that I don't know of?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, to me this isn't really so much an issue of religious freedom as it is of the freedom of individual parents to decide certain things for their children at a young age.

You don't get to decide if your daughter has a clitoris.

My initial inclination is to let these people do what they want to their own children provided that it does not cause serious health risks/issues.

Personally I think any adult who performs one or allows one to be performed ought to be summarily executed.

How's that for a health issue?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...