1st UK prosecution for Female Genital Mutilation "imminent"

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Robb F said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I'm an atheist and have no issue at all with male circumcision. FGM however, is a disgraceful practice. Comparing the 2 is like comparing ear piercing to beheading.

It's not though, as it's not reversible.

Although for what it's worth, seeing kids with their ears pieced makes me cringe as well.

Many more men are circumcised than there are women subjected to FGM. But there aren't armies of cut men campaigning for its end and saying they are victims. There are a few, but probably less than 0.01%, and my guess is that they are after some kind of compo. Most cut men are quite happy with their lot. It's uncut men who seem to get so het up about it.

But women who have been subjected to FGM are at the forefront of the campaign to ban it. Why should that be? Why aren't tens of millions of cut men protesting the world over??

[mph1977]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Robb F said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I'm an atheist and have no issue at all with male circumcision. FGM however, is a disgraceful practice. Comparing the 2 is like comparing ear piercing to beheading.

It's not though, as it's not reversible.

Although for what it's worth, seeing kids with their ears pieced makes me cringe as well.

Many more men are circumcised than there are women subjected to FGM. But there aren't armies of cut men campaigning for its end and saying they are victims. There are a few, but probably less than 0.01%, and my guess is that they are after some kind of compo. Most cut men are quite happy with their lot. It's uncut men who seem to get so het up about it.

But women who have been subjected to FGM are at the forefront of the campaign to ban it. Why should that be? Why aren't tens of millions of cut men protesting the world over??

Because Male genital Mutiliation in the form of none-clinically indicated Circumcision does not pose the functional problems that FGM does.

Edited by mph1977 on Thursday 5th February 13:50

[anonymous-user]

It is in principle wrong for any child to undergo a surgical procedure that is not medically advised, but having said that FGM is orders of magnitude worse than non medical male circumcision. FGM is more physically damaging, very much more in its worst forms (there are no good forms, only bad and worse), and it is also used as an instrument in the systematic subjection of women by some societies. I would support a ban on non medical circumcision of boys, but that is a much lower priority than ending FGM.

[JuniorD]

Breadvan72 said:

It appears that the CPS chose a pretty hopeless case for the first prosecution. The jury took only 30 minutes to acquit. Great work, CPS.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-31138218

Within 10 seconds of reading the original story of this guy I knew it was a horse-st prosecution and am so relieved that the jury made the correct decision. How in the name of god did this ever make it to court? A doctor doing his best for his patient in the heat of the moment facing an ill judged prosecution, it's insanity. Obs & gynae people are well used to high rates of litigation in their profession, but this nonsense is one egg shell too far.

[anonymous-user]

Those interested in the debate about male circumcision may wish to read the judgement linked to below. It is by Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division of the High Court. I suggest reading from paragraph 55 onwards. The earlier paragraphs deal with the facts.

A Council applied to take children into care because it thought that a young girl either had been or was going to be mutilated. Munby found on the facts that the girl had not been mutilated and that the Council had failed to show that she was at risk of being mutilated He therefore did not have to say anything at all about the issue of male circumcision, but, he did. He concluded that male circumcision is "serious harm":, but that the law tolerates it because, in summary, it is a culturally/religiously embedded practice. The law does not tolerate FGM.

I think that Munby quite deliberately chose to address a point that he did not have to address in order to bring the matter into public debate. It is fairly plain to me that he regards the conclusion forced on him by convention to be absurd, and points the contrast between the social acceptance of male circumcision and the condemnation of FGM for that purpose. What Munby then does is to decline to legislate, as that would overstep the boundary of what a Judge can do. It is not so easy to be Lord Mansfield these days (Lord Mansfield was a great C18 Judge who defied social convention to free a slave, holding slavery to be incompatible with the common law).

For a medical ethical take on this, see the attached article by Dr Brian Earp.


http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/201...

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/02/on-th...

[Mojooo]

Perhaps there is a difference because as I understand there can be medical reasons for male circumscion (a friend had it in school) whilst there can never be medical reasons for female equivalent.

Obviously that doesn;t do anything for the choice argument but at least its not as bad per se.

[98elise]

alfabadass said:

FGM is truely barbaric.

Male circumcision on the other hand is the superior way guys.

Way too much hate, usually from the anti-god squad.

What are you afraid of?

Whats it got to do with being athiest? Its cutting off something that doesn't need cutting off.

Nobody should be cutting bits off children unless there is a medical reason, especially if its for religious reasons. When did the child decide it wanted to be part of that particular religion?

[mph1977]

Mojooo said:

Perhaps there is a difference because as I understand there can be medical reasons for male circumscion (a friend had it in school) whilst there can never be medical reasons for female equivalent.

Obviously that doesn;t do anything for the choice argument but at least its not as bad per se.

but it does not justify routine male circumcision ... it;s a cash cow in the states and 'sky -fairy' stuff elsewhere

[hidetheelephants]

98elise said:

alfabadass said:

FGM is truely barbaric.

Male circumcision on the other hand is the superior way guys.

Way too much hate, usually from the anti-god squad.

What are you afraid of?

Whats it got to do with being athiest? Its cutting off something that doesn't need cutting off.

Nobody should be cutting bits off children unless there is a medical reason, especially if its for religious reasons. When did the child decide it wanted to be part of that particular religion?

They don't; until informed adult consent becomes necessary people will continue to chop bits off babies in the name of their skyfairy. I suspect chopping bits off penises would become much less popular if it required waiting until they were 18 and could express an informed opinion.

As we're off topic; all fgm is abhorrent, chopping bits off or sewing up orifices on anyone without consent needs stopping, but this doctor just seems to have been scapegoated as a result of being presented with a clinical case he was not trained to deal with.

[zygalski]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Robb F said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I'm an atheist and have no issue at all with male circumcision. FGM however, is a disgraceful practice. Comparing the 2 is like comparing ear piercing to beheading.

It's not though, as it's not reversible.

Although for what it's worth, seeing kids with their ears pieced makes me cringe as well.

Many more men are circumcised than there are women subjected to FGM. But there aren't armies of cut men campaigning for its end and saying they are victims. There are a few, but probably less than 0.01%, and my guess is that they are after some kind of compo. Most cut men are quite happy with their lot. It's uncut men who seem to get so het up about it.

But women who have been subjected to FGM are at the forefront of the campaign to ban it. Why should that be? Why aren't tens of millions of cut men protesting the world over??

I suggest you do some research as to what FGM entails. It's utterly barbaric & designed to remove any sense of sexual pleasure for a woman.
Removing a foreskin doesn't stop a bloke reaching orgasm & living a fulfilling sex life as far as I know.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

zygalski said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Robb F said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I'm an atheist and have no issue at all with male circumcision. FGM however, is a disgraceful practice. Comparing the 2 is like comparing ear piercing to beheading.

It's not though, as it's not reversible.

Although for what it's worth, seeing kids with their ears pieced makes me cringe as well.

Many more men are circumcised than there are women subjected to FGM. But there aren't armies of cut men campaigning for its end and saying they are victims. There are a few, but probably less than 0.01%, and my guess is that they are after some kind of compo. Most cut men are quite happy with their lot. It's uncut men who seem to get so het up about it.

But women who have been subjected to FGM are at the forefront of the campaign to ban it. Why should that be? Why aren't tens of millions of cut men protesting the world over??

I suggest you do some research as to what FGM entails. It's utterly barbaric & designed to remove any sense of sexual pleasure for a woman.
Removing a foreskin doesn't stop a bloke reaching orgasm & living a fulfilling sex life as far as I know.

I suggest you read my quote in context with my other post. I am on your side! My question was rhetorical.

[Pesty]

A punch on the arm is not as serious as a punch in the face.

But it's just as wrong to go and hit somebody.


Yes we get it it's worse for women. But chopping bits off people without consent is wrong.

Do you agree twigthewonder kid?