Parents found guilty of mutilating one year daughters genitals

SusieBlue

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I have asked this question, you have asked it twice yet nobody has answered. That says it all really.

I don't find any type of circumcision, on either gender, to be acceptable unless its for medical necessity.
Religious or cultural grounds are not a good enough reasons to circumsize/mutilate a non consenting child. Most reasonable people are of the same opinion.
I don't see any person on this thread condoning or encouraging such procedures so I'm not sure why your back is up.

joseywhales

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The procedure you linked to offered no medical justification for the procedure whatsoever. It was entirely based upon the idea of finding a compromise to acknowledge cultural beliefs that they found couldn’t be overcome. It has nothing to do with performing an equivalent medical procedure for equivalent medical conditions. Did you even read your own link?


We offer a revised categorisation for non-therapeutic FGA that groups procedures by effect and not by process. Acceptance of de minimis procedures that generally do not carry long-term medical risks is culturally sensitive, does not discriminate on the basis of gender, and does not violate human rights. More morbid procedures should not be performed. However, accepting de minimis non-therapeutic f FGA procedures enhances the effort of compassionate practitioners searching for a compromise position that respects cultural differences but protects the health of their patients.


Bold emphasis my own.

I get his point male circumcision is usually also non therapeutic and is therefore unethical to perform on a non consenting juvenile. I believe it is banned in Denmark and a few other countries for this reason.

Anyway it is not a justification for female circumcision, it is justification to ban both non therapeutic procedures because we do not live in the Stone age. Surely that's obvious enough?

jam_mac_jam

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I linked an article yesterday that details a circumcision procedure for girls that is analogous to the male version. Would you be ok with that being legalised and tax funded in Ireland?

I haven't read it sorry, but no I wouldn't. Not in favour of it for boys either unless for medical reason, which is rare.

jam_mac_jam

seamus wrote: »

The clitoral hood is the same tissue as the foreskin and serves a broadly similar purpose.

I find it quite bizarre that people will go crazy about FGM but when it comes to circumcision they say, "It's not really that big a deal, let's just ignore it".

The impact is certainly different, but the core issue is the exact same; you are mutilating a child for no good reason.

There should be a minimum five year sentence for anyone carrying out or facilitating any permanent body modifications on a child (under 16) that are not medically necessary. And I include piercings and tattoos in that.

A child's best interests are not served by allowing parents to make permanent alterations to their body which are not medically necessary. It's barbaric.

I agree that its barbaric for both boys and girls.

Also, its is very rarely just the hood in practice. You are all taking the most unharmful form and talking as if that's the most common.

However if you do not know the huge difference between the two then you need to do more reading. That's the reason people treat it differently because its hugely different with much worse outcomes for girls. Go and look it up. Its a nonsense argument. They are treated differently because they are different. Its like a finger and an arm.

mondeo

Humans are born with these body parts, they are not meant to be removed ! Stupid religious believes and cultural bullsh!t subjects kids to this cruel behavior.

These two freaks should be locked up, but I'm sure they will probably walk free with a fine or something.

Sarcozies

The people going out of their way to say that chopping off bits off baby boys genitals and chopping off bits off baby girls genitals are not the same at all are stupid and weird.

We care more about girls than boys. That's sad but hey it's the truth. It's similar to how domestic violence (nearly everything involving a man and a woman) is seen. Man on woman - terrible. Women on man - shhhhh that doesn't really happen and ITS NOT AS BAD.

Ban it all unless medically necessary. End of.

One eyed Jack

joseywhales wrote: »

I get his point male circumcision is usually also non therapeutic and is therefore unethical to perform on a non consenting juvenile. I believe it is banned in Denmark and a few other countries for this reason.

Anyway it is not a justification for female circumcision, it is justification to ban both non therapeutic procedures because we do not live in the Stone age. Surely that's obvious enough?

Unfortunately it wasn’t obvious enough, because from their very first post on this thread, their point isn’t that the procedure should be banned, it’s that it should be permitted -

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I don't see what all the fuss is about? It was done for religious reasons... The only reason the procedure was performed by a "back alley" practitioner is because female circumcision is illegal in Ireland. If those parents had a boy, they could perfectly legally get him circumcised in a tax payer funded hospital. If we are to believe in equality as it is unendingly spouted these days, female circumcision should be fully legalized and those parents should be freed. If it is good enough for a boy then it is good enough for a girl.

Kidchameleon doesn’t appear to be aware of the fact that medical justifications for circumcisions are not the same as cultural reasons for circumcisions, hence why the distinction is made between therapeutic circumcision in tax payer funded hospitals, and non-therapeutic circumcision, which isn’t. Whatever medical justifications there are for performing male circumcision, there are no medical justifications for performing female circumcision.

Claiming that “it’s good enough for boys so it should be good enough for girls” is exactly the sort of twisted logic some people try and argue alright, as though the outcomes of the procedures are the same for both males and females. I genuinely don’t even know where to begin with that one.

jam_mac_jam

Sarcozies wrote: »

The people going out of their way to say that chopping off bits off baby boys genitals and chopping off bits off baby girls genitals are not the same at all are stupid and weird.

We care more about girls than boys. That's sad but hey it's the truth. It's similar to how domestic violence (nearly everything involving a man and a woman) is seen. Man on woman - terrible. Women on man - shhhhh that doesn't really happen and ITS NOT AS BAD.

Ban it all unless medically necessary. End of.

People who have no idea of what they are talking about are stupid and weird.

jam_mac_jam

And again the conversation is all about penis.
Amazing.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Unfortunately it wasn’t obvious enough, because from their very first post on this thread, their point isn’t that the procedure should be banned, it’s that it should be permitted

Do read on when he later clarified:

"I was pointing out the hypocrisy regarding tolerance of male genital mutilation as opposed to rejection of female genital mutilation. Neither should be tolerated".

One eyed Jack

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

And again the conversation is all about penis.
Amazing.

It’s whataboutery really, plain and simple.

To attempt to reduce the outcomes of female genital mutilation to try and equate FGM with MGM takes some doing. One would have to be willingly blind to the impact FGM has on women.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Do read on when he later clarified:

"I was pointing out the hypocrisy regarding tolerance of male genital mutilation as opposed to rejection of female genital mutilation. Neither should be tolerated".

I really can’t spare the time to entertain your nonsense any more nozz.

I hope that’s suitably clarified for you now too.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I really can’t spare the time to entertain your nonsense any more nozz.

Your personal issues aside, there is nothing nonsense about it. You made a demonstrably false claim. You claim the users position is that both should be permitted. The user very clearly said however NEITHER should be.

If reality is nonsense to you, then I can't help you much. But I will point out reality all the same. IF is inconvenient for you that the user was not saying what you require him to be saying to make your points... that is your issue not mine surely?

katiek102010

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I think the both of you need to get your sarcasm detectors serviced...



I was pointing out the hypocrisy regarding tolerance of male genital mutilation as opposed to rejection of female genital mutilation. Neither should be tolerated yet boys get tax subsidized circumcisions in Ireland.





Literal bullying

Male circumcision and male genital mutilation are 2 completely different things.

To equate circumcision with FGM it's actually beyond belief.

Circumcision is removal of part of or the foreskin. FGM is rge removal of the clitoris. To perform a similar surgery on a man it would be the removal of full penis and testes.

I firmly believe that circumcision should only be done for medical necessity

nozzferrahhtoo

katiek102010 wrote: »

Male circumcision and male genital mutilation are 2 completely different things.

Depends how you look at it. The irreversible removal of any body part, for no justifiable reason IS "mutilation". So in that sense they are not different things at all.

katiek102010 wrote: »

To equate circumcision with FGM it's actually beyond belief.

I am not sure people are equating them. They are COMPARING them. Nothing wrong with that. A mountain is very different to a car. But if both are grey in colour I can COMPARE them on that attribute.

So whether MGM and FGM are comparable depends ENTIRELY on what attribute you are actually comparing them on. If we are comparing them on the fact that both are irreversible and mostly unjustifiable mutilations of the body of someone unable to consent.... then yes they are very much comparable on that level.

katiek102010 wrote: »

To perform a similar surgery on a man it would be the removal of full oenis and testes

Well no, because that would render him unable to reproduce or even have sex also. So that would not be "similar surgery" at all. It would be very much worse as it is not just a physical mutilation against the person but also a removal of an entire biological function.

Whatever horrors there are about FGM, it does not remove the ability to have sex and it does not remove the ability to reproduce. So your comparison does not AT ALL hold here.

seamus

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

However if you do not know the huge difference between the two then you need to do more reading.

Oh I know the difference.

And I totally agree that it's incredibly annoying that threads about FGM so frequently (perhaps constantly) get brigaded with people asking "wHaT aBoUt MeN".

But that doesn't mean they should be treated any differently. Your finger and arm comparison is a good one; Should unnecessarily removing a child's finger be treated less seriously than removing their arm? I don't think so.

If there was a widespread practice of removing women's arms and men's fingers, would we say that we should focus on the arm issue first and come back to the finger issue later? Again, I don't think so.

At the core of both practices are archaic beliefs about the right of parents & communities to have a say in the bodily autonomy of individuals within, based on religious or cultural practice.

Attacking individual scenarios and beliefs may serve a purpose. But there are also opportunities to take wide swings at this nonsense and wipe it all out in one go. And this is one of them.

My hope is that this case will serve not only as precendent for any future FGM cases that come down the line, but as a springboard to bring forward even wider child protection measures against parents who view their children as property or fashion accessories.

SusieBlue

I wonder if those who circumcise their sons for "preventative" reasons also have their tonsils & appendixes removed at birth also. You never ever hear of people doing that, yet you'd often hear of parents claiming to have their babies circumcised in case they run into problems with tight foreskins down the line.
So why not have the appendix and tonsils removed too? It makes no sense at all.

nozzferrahhtoo

SusieBlue wrote: »

So why not have the appendix and tonsils removed too? It makes no sense at all.

Yeah the most hilarious one I ever read was a citation showing that removal of the foreskin prevents.... wait for it.... a cancer of the foreskin.

Amazing huh? That you might not get cancer in a body part you do not actually have? Wait there while I go off and have my colon and lungs removed at once.

osarusan

seamus wrote: »

There should be a minimum five year sentence for anyone carrying out or facilitating any permanent body modifications on a child (under 16) that are not medically necessary. And I include piercings and tattoos in that.

You want a 5-year prison sentence for any parent who allows their 15 year old son or daughter to get their ears pierced?

Blaizes

osarusan wrote: »

You want a 5-year prison sentence for any parent who allows their 15 year old son or daughter to get their ears pierced?

You can’t equate ear piercing to genital mutilation in my opinion. That said I got my ears pierced at seven (by my godmother ) who had not asked my mothers permission. The ears oozed and bled and my mother had to take me to the doctor but eventually they cleared up.I remember at the time it was very painful and my mother was obviously furious.

My daughter has asked to have hers done and I’ve said no, having done a bit of research seems the piercing guns can not be properly sterilized and the best place to have them done is at a tattoo shop though they won’t pierce the ears of children as far as I understand though I am open to correction on this. Loads of her friends who had them pierced around the age of seven had to let the ears close up again. It’s not a necessary procedure for a child it’s cosmetic so why can’t it wait till they are older.

Raconteuse

vicwatson wrote: »

Can we do the same for male genital mutilation I wonder?

Jeez did you not see the numerous posts before yours asking the same question?

A very young child's clitoris was sliced off and her vaginal opening sewn up... should be enough to cause horror in and of itself, however, not wonderful Current Affairs - "but whatabout!" :rolleyes:

I think circumcision of young boys is barbaric and upsetting too, and should also be banned (shouldn't have to say this but some geniuses decide that if you're opposed to FGM (I.e. you're normal), you aren't opposed to MGM). but... can there be ANY discussion about violations of females without "but but muh males", "People care more about females" (I mean yeah, clearly, when there is a practice like FGM)? It's in such bad taste. Very easy to start another thread but why resist a good gender polarisation opportunity.

Can't stand seeing babies and toddlers with pierced ears either.

Raconteuse

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, I believe that when migrating to another country, you respect the culture and laws of that country. If you cannot accept the cultural/legal differences, and must continue your own traditions, then don't move to that country.

FGM is an awful practice that shouldn't ever be tolerated in Ireland, and those who engage in it, should be expelled immediately (with a criminal record being registered). This is not something that we want gaining a foothold in Ireland as a way to accept/tolerate the differences in culture of immigrants. As Ireland becomes more diverse (which is definitely going to happen), we are going to see more pressure to allow operations like FGM or other cultural customs that are alien to these shores. There will be the eventual expectation that Ireland should adapt to accept such practices as a magnanimous first world nation with freedom for all.. This does not mean that we should seek to block out all cultural customs of immigrants, but there are a variety of customs which are simply barbaric/primitive and shouldn't be allowed to continue. If they can't accept that, there are plenty of countries left in the world, where they can live that way.

While I am against FGM, I respect their right to do so within the bounds of their own country should it be legal to do so. It's not my place to demand change from another country... Such change, along with the moral recognition of it's negative value, has to come from the native people themselves. That is the step of progress and advancement of society. It simply can't be forced on anyone, because they'll simply dig in, reinforcing their belief in it's value because they feel persecuted. I can, however, object to/oppose it's practice in any European nation since it's not a practice native to the native cultures... Nope. Harsh treatment should be applied to those who perform FGM in Ireland (both the parents and the "medical" personnel), and a message that this will not be tolerated very publicly made.

No I don't respect their right to torture tiny children in their own country. And it's everyone's place to demand that this be changed. Or at least it's a reasonable opinion to express.

wellwhynot

It is estimated between 78% and 92% of all males in America are circumcised. You cannot compare circumcision with FGM which has no place at all in civilised society.

Blaizes

wellwhynot wrote: »

It is estimated between 78% and 92% of all males in America are circumcised. You cannot compare circumcision with FGM which has no place at all in civilised society.

That high a number wow. FGM is completely barbaric and a disgusting practice those poor poor girls can’t imagine the pain and suffering they most go through. It’s so so wrong.

nozzferrahhtoo

wellwhynot wrote: »

It is estimated between 78% and 92% of all males in America are circumcised. You cannot compare circumcision with FGM which has no place at all in civilised society.

Except you can compare them under the rubric of "unjustifiable irreversible mutilation of a childs genitals".

I see no reason to gender the issue at all. Unjustified modification of a childs genitals should have no place in civilised society.

Raconteuse

Nah I think you can compare them. Particularly the forcing it on an infant.

But what's dishonest is direct comparisons overall, which would imply it's done to boys so that sex is painful and damaging for them (as in, this is an actual purpose of it). And that adult females would choose it for hygiene reasons.

Eric Cartman

In order to avail of citizenship/asylum or leave to remain in this country you should have to sign a document committing to not taking any part in genital mutilation of children , including witnessing it or sending children to anybody for it, lest you be deported within 24 hours. This is completely bananas that we are allowing in people who believe in this barbaric practice

One eyed Jack

Raconteuse wrote: »

Nah I think you can compare them. Particularly the forcing it on an infant.

But what's dishonest is direct comparisons overall, which would imply it's done to boys so that sex is painful and damaging for them (as in, this is an actual purpose of it). And that adult females would choose it for hygiene reasons.

I don’t think they need to be conflated at all to be honest. I don’t get the point of drawing comparisons either. One might as well be comparing apples and oranges on the basis of their shared property being that they are both spherical objects. That’s about where the comparison begins and ends.

FGM differs from MGM in many more ways than anything it has in common with MGM. This thread was about a case involving FGM, and there’s plenty of discussion can be had about the motivations, practices, cultural influences and so on, as distinct from MGM, which has it’s own motivations, practices, cultural influences and so on.

That, for me anyway is why it’s whataboutery to attempt to wedge in MGM into a thread which started as a discussion of FGM, and has been overtaken by attempts to dilute the issues involved with FGM specifically by suggesting it should be a discussion blind to sex, as though the consequences and outcomes of both forms of mutilation are the same. They clearly aren’t.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

as though the consequences and outcomes of both forms of mutilation are the same. They clearly aren’t.

I am not sure who is making that claim though. The comparison people are drawing are not reliant on the outcomes and consequences being the same.

Rather what they/we are saying is that by gendering the issue or having a pissing competition about who suffers more just brings in irrelevancies. The simple fact is that mutiliating a baby or toddler, for no medically justifiable reason, should be a crime. Nothing to do with religion. Nothing to do with culture. Nothing to do with gender.

It should not be done. It should be illegal. And regardless of whether the consequences of the VICTIMS vary, the consequences of the criminal should be the same.

Sarcozies

Scientists *comparing banana DNA with human DNA*

This thread: yOu CaNt CoMpArE mUtiLaTiNg A vAGiNa AnD a PeNiS.