Click Here or on above image for information on the book
or
Click here to watch a video by the author
Posted on 08/11/2007 10:54:12 PM PDT by Private_Sector_Does_It_Better
Female genital mutilation should be called what it is, and not downplayed by using a term like female circumcision. The two are in no way similar, physiologically.
I think both Squeako and JillValentine were trying to be sarcastic. If not, then I applaud your statements and am sickened by theirs.
There certainly was much sarcasm in my post. However, there have certainly been many male infants who have died as a result of complications of routine neonatal circumcision, even when performed in a hospital. The procedure performed on this girl would be wrong even if it happened under such conditions.
My argument against doing this to males is that the tissue is there for a legitimate reasons, it isn't "extra", and its removal often does have consequences involving future sexual function. It simply must, and is the goal. The circumcised penis does not function the same way as the intact penis. This is the point in the discussion at which someone says, "I never had any problem." Maybe, maybe not. It would be hard to tell with parts that have been missing nearly one's entire life. The point is that it's typically unnecessary.
Of course there are differences in the procedures. I was primarily addressing the attitude I see most often from women, that it's perfectly fine to remove specialized male genital tissue, however much, but unacceptable to perform such a procedure on a girl. Often it has the appearance of a twisted N.O.W. procedure with the goal of emasculation.
I've heard all sorts of arguments from women, even "Uncircumcised is gross, so I'll gladly do that to my sons as a gift to my future daughters in law." (That one was here on FR!) God forbid a man is able to grow up knowing everything he was born with is still there simply because his mom thinks it's gross! Another was, "Do you know how hard it is to clean all that skin from being in a dirty diaper?" So, removing healthy, specialized sexual tissue unnecessarily simply because the outside is easier to clean (for a parent) is somehow a good thing?
The argument against the procedure for girls but supportive for boys really boils down to the amount of tissue. Females do have other erogenous areas, so all is not lost, right? (/sarc, BTW) Males still have the glans, so all is not lost, right? (/sarc again) Would male circumcision be wrong only if the glans is also removed? I think not. They are both wrong to be performed on an unconsenting, minor patient.
No, I don't mind. I can teach them to be more hygienic. Of course, I could be so bothered by dirty, waxy ears that I have them amputated, but in that case everyone would recognize that those structures have specific functions, and their removal would be simply unacceptable.
The hygiene issue is simple: once the skin naturally detaches from the glans (it's supposed to be attached until it's ready, and not forced back) teach them to pull it back, rinse it off and put it back where it was.
The cancer risk is miniscule. You wouldn't advocate routine neonatal preemptive mastectomy simply to avoid a possible future breast cancer, would you?
Thank you for your reply. And while I believe genital mutilation is babaric and obscene, the circumcision of infant boys is believed by doctors to be safe and more healthy for boys. Your arguments against doing this to a child are ridiculous. The same could be said of the vaccinations babies and children recieve in childhood. These are done for health reasons. What about surgery performed in utero for heart problems and such? Should those not be done because the child cannot give permission.
There is a big difference between circumcision and genital mutilation. Making it male vs female does not help your argument. Just my opinion for what it is worth.
>>The argument against the procedure for girls but supportive for boys really boils down to the amount of tissue.
Look, I’m no fan of male circumcision, and we declined to have it done when our son was born. Just to establish my bona fides on this issue.
That said, your statement that I’ve quoted above, is one of the more ridiculous assertions I’ve seen lately.
Using female genital mutilation threads to push an anti-male circumcision agenda, and attempting to equate the two, is just prima facie absurd. Go start another thread, probably in Chat, to push your agenda.
There is a big difference between circumcision and genital mutilation. Making it male vs female does not help your argument. Just my opinion for what it is worth.
Ah, the mysterious "for health reasons". Leaving it where it is supposed to be seems like a much more valid "health reason" than anything else. It's unnecessary elective surgery. The tissue is not regular skin and performs specialized functions. To equate the removal of healthy, specialized sexual tissue unnecessarily with repairing a damaged heart is quite a stretch.
Think about it, friend. You are saying that not routinely amputating healthy specialized sexual tissue from a newborn boy's genitals is ridiculous.
Hey, I responded to a post someone else made about male circumcision. If you don't want to post about it, that's fine, but here we are.
Really what is so ridiculous about the statement relating to the amount of tissue removed? If simply the clitoral hood were removed from the girl, you'd be fine with it?
That is not what I said. I said that your arguments for not doing this procedure on a child were ridiculous meaning that to use your line of reasoning that an infant, who has no choice, should not have medical procedures. You did not answer how that works with in utero operations etc.
I understand your passion on this subject...and want to understand what you are saying. But to remove the foreskin of a boy vs shaving off the most sensitive organ of a girl is comparing apples and oranges. And correct me if I am wrong, but it is still an option of the parents to decline the procedure. In the culture of hate (i.e. Islamofascism) this is done routinely to little girls.
Now you’re putting words in my mouth. I’m done with you. Good day.
I understand your passion on this subject...and want to understand what you are saying. But to remove the foreskin of a boy vs shaving off the most sensitive organ of a girl is comparing apples and oranges. And correct me if I am wrong, but it is still an option of the parents to decline the procedure. In the culture of hate (i.e. Islamofascism) this is done routinely to little girls.
Well, you did say in the previous post "...the circumcision of infant boys is believed by doctors to be safe and more healthy for boys. Your arguments against doing this to a child are ridiculous. If I misread that, my mistake.
Regarding "shaving off the most sensitive organ of a girl", removing the foreskin is doing this though the glans is left. The foreskin isn't just regular skin. A more direct correlation may be removal of the girl's clitoral hood, which I think we could agree would be wrong and unneccesary.
And, how can you say that Islam is a culture of hate? It's the official Religion of Peace! :)
It’s more like apples and, say, coffee tables, but yes, you’ve got it.
Come on, don't go away mad. I'm not putting words in your mouth. I didn't say you would be okay with simply removing the girl's clitoral hood. It was a question.
Maybe I could have been more clear and said, "...would you be fine with it?" rather than "...you'd be fine with it?"
But, have a good day, nonetheless.
I pray this child RIP in God’s loving arms.
The women of islam are SLAVES!
And the ACLU, and the liberal progressive Democrats are battling with the Christians in this country while embracing and coddling the Islamists. When o when are we going to wake up? when its to late? When was the last time a christian performed such a gruesome act on a child or for that matter any practicing religion in this country?
There’s nothing Muslim about female circumcision, so it’s unfair to tag it as evidence of the barbarity of Islam. It’s an arab-african cultural thing. It’s fair to tag it as evidence of those cultures.
i know that they don’t “cair”
female circumcision >>
I call it female genital mutilation and her father should be mutilated too for allowing this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.