Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow, really? Thanks for telling me that. I never would have known.
I will again point out that if circumcision was classified at "mutilation," it would be illegal. And, no, it's not the "worst argument" you tried to claim it was. Or "pathetic." Just a fact.
I never got the impression that female circumcision was a procedure that a woman would actively seek out. i was under the impression it was a barbaric act of mutilation perpetrated by religious elders or overzealous parents.
It is more wide spread in Egypt than circumcision is in the US. Over 90% of women have been circumcised there. Obviously the vast majority of people there think it is fine.
female mutilation is barbaric, cruel and leaves the girl traumatised and in agony... it serves no purpose at all except for some ancient madness so that women dont enjoy sex...this explains their mental reasoning , how could any parent allow this act.
The type of mutilation practiced, the age at which it is carried out and the way in which it is done, vary according to a variety of factors. These include the woman or girl’s ethnic group, what country they are living in, whether in a rural or urban area and their socio-economic background.
The procedure is carried out at a variety of ages, ranging from shortly after birth to sometime during the first pregnancy. It most commonly occurs between the ages of 0 to 15 years and the age is decreasing in some countries. The practice has been linked in some countries with rites of passage for women.
FGM is usually performed by traditional practitioners using a sharp object such as a knife, a razor blade or broken glass. There is also evidence of an increase in the performance of FGM by medical personnel. However, medicalisation of FGM is denounced by WHO.
Okay so it would be alright if it was done hygienically? In Muslim countries boys are circumcised at 13 years old. You don't think it leaves them traumatized as well? With the majority of cases of FGM, women are still able to enjoy sex, infibulation is only a small percentage of cases of FGM. Female circumcision as is practiced in Egypt for example is quite analogous to male circumcision and is more widespread than male circumcision is here. Over 90% of women in Egypt have been circumcised.
It is sexist to be okay with chopping off little boys bits but not be okay with chopping of the same amount of little girls bits.
Going by your recent post (#283), it looks like you are the one who needs to be educated on the subject.
You do realize I was pointing out that the same "logic" used to justify male circumcision can be used to justify female circumcision. I am not condoning either.
When you claim that circumcision isn't mutilation based on the grounds that it is legal, that is an appeal to authority. That isn't a logical argument. I haven't made an appeal to authority once on this thread.
Quote:
Do you think that circumcision is mutilation?
I already answered that above, see post #270. The post right after you try to justify your appeal to authority because it makes sense to you, haha.
If you talked to most people in the world that experienced FGM they would share the same sentiment as you are displaying here.
I am circumcised. I don't blame my parents, they aren't abusers. I don't look at other guys and think they are "mutilated". However, with that said, I think the practice is insane. The fact that it happens in modern countries is astounding.
I think it's an unnecessary procedure in most cases, but not barbaric. That would require victims and abusers, neither of which we have here.
You do realize I was pointing out that the same "logic" used to justify male circumcision can be used to justify female circumcision. I am not condoning either.
The two can't be compared.
Quote:
When you claim that circumcision isn't mutilation based on the grounds that it is legal, that is an appeal to authority. That isn't a logical argument. I haven't made an appeal to authority once on this thread.
Not just due to legality. If it was "mutilation," doctors and surgeons would not do that procedure.
Quote:
I already answered that above, see post #270. The post right after you try to justify your appeal to authority because it makes sense to you, haha.
You said, "If FGM is mutilation, then so is circumcision, just to a lessor extent." That seems to mean you consider circumcision to be mutilation. If so, then you are wrong. It is not "insane," (to use your description) either.
Of course they can be compared. Don't be ridiculous.
Quote:
Not just due to legality. If it was "mutilation," doctors and surgeons would not do that procedure.
Where do you come up with this "logic"? I am in no way comparing these two, but one example that comes to mind is some of the things Nazi doctors did to people during the Holocaust. Please keep in mind that in Egypt for example, most female circumcisions are performed my medical professionals including doctors.
Quote:
You said, "If FGM is mutilation, then so is circumcision, just to a lessor extent." That seems to mean you consider circumcision to be mutilation. If so, then you are wrong. It is not "insane," (to use your description) either.
Where does one draw the line of mutilation? If I cut off your hand is that mutilation? I would say so. What about just your pinky finger? I would still say that is mutilation. What about the just last knuckle of your pinky finger? I don't know where to draw the line. I would say that type 1 female circumcision is fairly analogous to male circumcision so either they are both mutilation or they aren't.
So, I have my views on this and I was interested in learning about your views as well.
A few ground rules if I may:
I'm interested in SCIENTIFIC reasons. NOT how you 'feel' about the topic...or what "god" says. I really want to know WHY you are for or against circumcision and would like to learn about the scientific reasons behind your position.
My view is that since it's not 'MY' body, I don't really have a right to modify it. I've read that circumcision 'may prevent' some types of cancer, but i'm not sure about the sources. I've also heard about cleanliness and the reduced chances of getting infection IF a newborn is circumcised.....but then again, i've heard the counter claim that it's more likely that the newborn will get infections from the circumcision itself!
What say you? Please provide sources to back your claim if possible.
Circumcision is part of the Asian (Jewish) culture.
If you are of European stock, do not circumcise yourself or your children, that is not Catholic/Christian.
Body mutilation is part of Asian and African religions and cultures.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
