Thread: Obamacare - Female genital mutilation is OK in America

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Really? How do you know?

The 'two thirds' I read somewhere- I can't vouch for it's accuracy though.

Circumcision performed on the newborn baby boy traumatically interrupts the natural separation of the foreskin from the glans that normally occurs anywhere between birth and age 18. The raw, exposed glans penis heals in a process that measurably thickens the surface and results in desensitization of the head (glans) of the penis.
circumcize

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by keda

Which others?

People that have the ability to think objectively. That was a very simple question to answer.

Bravo, you have done it again.

Now then, seeing as you can bring yourself to answering questions, albeit obtusely, how about the one you carefully sidestepped:

...what if a religion or ideology or cult sanctioned the hacking of kiddie clits? - would you unconditionally condemn it?

No I thought not, your diversions lead straight into the cesspit, as usual!

QED - both your evasion and your grasping at another distraction.

So, sabang, if a religion or ideology sanctioned the mutilation of kiddie clits, would you unconditionally condemn it?

Note that 'unconditionally' means without your traditional staccato of buts.

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Really? How do you know?

The 'two thirds' I read somewhere- I can't vouch for it's accuracy though.

Circumcision performed on the newborn baby boy traumatically interrupts the natural separation of the foreskin from the glans that normally occurs anywhere between birth and age 18. The raw, exposed glans penis heals in a process that measurably thickens the surface and results in desensitization of the head (glans) of the penis.
circumcize

It's incredible, because there is a ill thought out practice of circumcision on boys in certain countries, that do in no way excuse the criminal mutilation of small girls purely due to a sick male wish of power and control by trying to remove girls/women's sexuality/urges, a religious rule in a religion where women have little or no value as human beings, but are rated more like animal livestock.

I do not know if it's true that it is allowed for doctors to preform mutilation on Girls in the US, but thankfully it is illegal in my country, and any doctor caught will loose his right to practice and go to prison. Likewise any parents caught sending/or traveling back to their home country's to have the mutilation preformed on their girls will go to prison if they are found out, hospital staff and doctors in my country are required to report any such incidents they come across.

No matter what Sab says circumcision on boys are no where near as invasive as the religious genital mutilation preformed on Girls in the muslim world no matter the style, and there is absolutely no hygienic excuse, in many country's the circumcision of boys is seen as a question of hygiene and not a religious thing like with Jews and Arabs, I suppose they where slow on picking up on personal hygiene in all those places, so they just chose to cut the cover away so the natural secretions would rub off in their underwear instead

We've had this.

FGM is not something typically Muslim.

In Africa all the faiths do it, including Christians and animists.

Maybe do a background check on Equality Now if it's such a fascinating subject.

Originally Posted by larvidchr

No matter what Sab says circumcision on boys are no where near as invasive as the religious genital mutilation preformed on Girls in the muslim world no matter the style

Plenty of medical material disagrees with that POV larv, which leads me to suspect that the whole GM debate is ethnocentricaly biased and slanted, given the prevalence of MGM in our society. When I read reasoned debate as opposed to hype, there is nothing that makes me think the type 1 & type 2 forms of FGM (the vast majority) are any worse than MGM, possibly even more benign-

The severity of female circumcision depends on which of these operations are performed (as well as how roughly), and it is true that the most extreme forms (involving the amputation of the external genitalia, with or without infibulation) are significantly worse than even the most radical foreskin amputation. But it should be remembered that the most extreme forms of FGM are rare, and that male circumcision in general is far more common on a world scale than female: about 13 million boys, compared with two million girls annually. [1] On top of this, it should be appreciated that the effects of male circumcision are also highly unpredictable, depending on how much penile tissue is removed, on the skill of the surgeon, on the precise configuration of penile blood vessels and nerve networks, and on the eventual size attained by the penis at puberty and maturity. The more tissue excised, the greater the damage to the penis, the greater the effect on sexual functioning and capability; the same quantity of tissue lost will be worse in cases where the penis is programmed to grow larger in maturity, or where the location of blood vessels and nerves (always variable) means that important connections are severed. Because the slack tissue is needed to accommodate the enlarged penis when tumescent, a really severe circumcision will make erections painful or even impossible.

Given the respective numbers of victims involved and the fact that some circumcisions are worse than some instances of FGM, there is no justification for perpetuating the gender discrimination which has characterised discussion of these issues. Indeed, a female victim of circumcision during a "holy war" by Islamic extremists in Indonesia recently commented afterwards that what was done to the men was worse than what the women suffered: "I know the men suffered more than us women. The circumcision hurt them more that it did to us because their scars could not heal fast. Several of the men I knew got serious infections after suffering from severe bleeding."

Female circumcision | Circinfo.org

Denmark is actually quite an interesting case- it banned all forms of FGM about 7 years ago. Now they are looking at raising the age for male circumcision to 15. Unsurprisingly, the Jewish community is up in arms:-

http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/Art...625859,00.html

Originally Posted by keda

So, sabang, if a religion or ideology sanctioned the mutilation of kiddie clits, would you unconditionally condemn it?

I would never unconditionally condemn any religion or ideology that sanctioned a practise I did not agree with. I would have no such qualms about unconditionally condemning the practise itself.

And plenty don't, such as the medical science specialists in my country, the FGM was forbidden first because that clearly was seen as the worst, it's simply rated as a crime of mutilation of female children, male circumcision are now being looked into as to be a personal choice, when you are old enough to understand the consequences, not so with any type FGM.

^^ We have had no Christian Africans force mutilating their female children nor any other kind of faiths, only among Muslims has this been a problem, with parents before pressurizing doctors to do it, doing it in private, or traveling home to get it done.

So it is only a problem for us in my Country with parents from certain areas that are Muslim and insist on the mutilation.

But if we had African tribes people wanting to put plates in their lower lips, or Thai tribes people wanting to put brass rings around their daughters necks, that is illegal to in my country Pol Pot.

Well, it's still a fact in Africa. There everybody does it.

FGM in Arab countries is very rare, I think the rate picks up again in SEA but it's a symbollic (to mild) form. Mostly a needle is waved around the girl's crotch. Not sure what that is about.

Originally Posted by sabang

...

Originally Posted by keda

So, sabang, if a religion or ideology sanctioned the mutilation of kiddie clits, would you unconditionally condemn it?

I would never unconditionally condemn any religion or ideology that sanctioned a practise I did not agree with. I would have no such qualms about unconditionally condemning the practise itself.

Brilliant liberal doubletalk.

Congratulations, you have managed to squirm out of something that any honest and decent person would have no hesitation to answer.

Originally Posted by Pol the Pot

Well, it's still a fact in Africa. There everybody does it.

FGM in Arab countries is very rare, I think the rate picks up again in SEA but it's a symbollic (to mild) form. Mostly a needle is waved around the girl's crotch. Not sure what that is about.

That's right, all African women have their clits hacked off, and it's rare in Arab countries (ie north Africa) where they wave a needle around the crotch and bray some prayers and that's it. Can't imagine what all the fuss is about.

You should meet up with sabang sometime, the two of you have much in common.

Originally Posted by keda

Originally Posted by Pol the Pot

Well, it's still a fact in Africa. There everybody does it.

FGM in Arab countries is very rare, I think the rate picks up again in SEA but it's a symbollic (to mild) form. Mostly a needle is waved around the girl's crotch. Not sure what that is about.

That's right, all African women have their clits hacked off, and it's rare in Arab countries (ie north Africa) where they wave a needle around the crotch and bray some prayers and that's it. Can't imagine what all the fuss is about.

You should meet up with sabang sometime, the two of you have much in common.

True, my bad, all religions practice it.

It is practically unknown of in North Africa, true. The northern border runs through the Sahel from west to east, then northwards along the Nile, the southern border runs along a rough line of Nigeria, Cameroon and straight accross to Ethiopia and Somalia.

The most invasive form is done by Copts in Southern Egypt and in the Sudan, both in the northern Muslim part and in the southern Christian and animist parts.

Replying to Larvidchr in this post, maybe you didn't see any of this but it's there. Depending on where you visited, cities or the countryside or tribal areas.

I've lived in the Maghreb countries and in Southwest Africa and I have to say I don't see much difference in the friendliness of the women.

FWIW, Female genital cutting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just saw your map, LVC, do you know from when it is?

Interesting how the middle east isn't the main practitioner.
Can we post pics? No labia is the rule , right?

More grapic photos at

Middle-East-Info.org - Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Pictures and Graphics

Originally Posted by Ripley

Interesting how the middle east isn't the main practitioner.
Can we post pics? No labia is the rule , right?

And most of those that have been mutilated on the Arab peninsula are from Africa.

Originally Posted by larvidchr

A few!!, did you look at the map Ripley, it's like 500.000.000 people we are talking about, a big part being women for religious reasons (Islam) alone.

So if we had a religion that specified that all women should have their nose cut off, and that then was done by force to 100.000.000 million women being only 25% percent of women in the religion you would not condemn the whole religion as cruel bullshit.?

Have a look at the Wiki article I linked to. It's got a 'Woman's Issues' warning, written from a maybe feminist viewpoint, therefore no hidden agenda. It explains a lot but contains some graphic images, just in case you're in the office.