FGM Parties

[rscott]

So back to discussing how to control an illegal activity (as opposed to wanting to ban something currently legal).

How do you suggest we reduce new cases of FGM ?
I'd go for a combination of education around the lack of medical need for it, along with help from various religious leaders to condemn it too. Then follow it up with a strong effort to identify and prosecute those carrying it out.

Could also run an educational campaign to dissuade male circumcision too, if you can supply convincing medical evidence to support it.

[WinstonWolf]

rscott said:

So back to discussing how to control an illegal activity (as opposed to wanting to ban something currently legal).

How do you suggest we reduce new cases of FGM ?
I'd go for a combination of education around the lack of medical need for it, along with help from various religious leaders to condemn it too. Then follow it up with a strong effort to identify and prosecute those carrying it out.

Could also run an educational campaign to dissuade male circumcision too, if you can supply convincing medical evidence to support it.

Sorry, I will not acquiesce to your request.

Just let people decide what to do with their own bits, why should someone else choose?

I assume you wouldn't be happy if I had the right to order you circumcised without ever asking you.

[anonymous-user]

Countdown said:

Are the sentences for both the same?

So you agree both are illegal and require punishment, so progress is made? Feel free to check what constitutes each and where on the scale you would place place cutting which leaves permanent scarring, perhaps in line with a Type 1a of Type IV FGM.

Then, like I have write regularly to your MP and to (currently) Karen Bradley ([e-mail]) to raise your objection to mutilation of children in the name of culture/religion/habit.

My MP was diplomatically sympathetic, Bradley has not replied.

Your experience?

[rscott]

WinstonWolf said:

rscott said:

So back to discussing how to control an illegal activity (as opposed to wanting to ban something currently legal).

How do you suggest we reduce new cases of FGM ?
I'd go for a combination of education around the lack of medical need for it, along with help from various religious leaders to condemn it too. Then follow it up with a strong effort to identify and prosecute those carrying it out.

Could also run an educational campaign to dissuade male circumcision too, if you can supply convincing medical evidence to support it.

Sorry, I will not acquiesce to your request.

Just let people decide what to do with their own bits, why should someone else choose?

I assume you wouldn't be happy if I had the right to order you circumcised without ever asking you.

A random third party doesn't have the right to arrange circumcision now (see recent case of grandparents getting child circumcised). Only the parents, who have legal responsibility for the child can approve it.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

WinstonWolf said:

Just let people decide what to do with their own bits, why should someone else choose?

Great, FGM issue solved. Who knew it would be so easy. Young girls just need to tell their parents that it's their choice and they don't want it done, and they aren't going out to Sudan for a holiday. And their parents will no doubt say "fair enough, just wanted to run the idea past you."

[WinstonWolf]

rscott said:

WinstonWolf said:

rscott said:

So back to discussing how to control an illegal activity (as opposed to wanting to ban something currently legal).

How do you suggest we reduce new cases of FGM ?
I'd go for a combination of education around the lack of medical need for it, along with help from various religious leaders to condemn it too. Then follow it up with a strong effort to identify and prosecute those carrying it out.

Could also run an educational campaign to dissuade male circumcision too, if you can supply convincing medical evidence to support it.

Sorry, I will not acquiesce to your request.

Just let people decide what to do with their own bits, why should someone else choose?

I assume you wouldn't be happy if I had the right to order you circumcised without ever asking you.

A random third party doesn't have the right to arrange circumcision now (see recent case of grandparents getting child circumcised). Only the parents, who have legal responsibility for the child can approve it.

Only the person should approve it, it's not of the parents business to modify someone because of their personal preference.

Don't smack 'em, but cut bits of their cock off??

Wait till the age of consent then let the individual make their own choice.

Remember, it's parents who are responsible for FGM.

[Countdown]

wsurfa said:

So you agree both are illegal and require punishment, so progress is made? Feel free to check what constitutes each and where on the scale you would place place cutting which leaves permanent scarring, perhaps in line with a Type 1a of Type IV FGM.

Then, like I have write regularly to your MP and to (currently) Karen Bradley ([e-mail]) to raise your objection to mutilation of children in the name of culture/religion/habit.

My MP was diplomatically sympathetic, Bradley has not replied.

Your experience?

No I don't agree. FGM is illegal. Male circumcision isn't. As I said above I'm reasonably happy with that. So I won't be writing to my MP.

HTH

[del mar]

Countdown said:

wsurfa said:

So you agree both are illegal and require punishment, so progress is made? Feel free to check what constitutes each and where on the scale you would place place cutting which leaves permanent scarring, perhaps in line with a Type 1a of Type IV FGM.

Then, like I have write regularly to your MP and to (currently) Karen Bradley ([e-mail]) to raise your objection to mutilation of children in the name of culture/religion/habit.

My MP was diplomatically sympathetic, Bradley has not replied.

Your experience?

No I don't agree. FGM is illegal. Male circumcision isn't. As I said above I'm reasonably happy with that. So I won't be writing to my MP.

HTH

If cutting boys was made illegal would that change your opinion on it ?

[del mar]

rscott said:

So back to discussing how to control an illegal activity (as opposed to wanting to ban something currently legal).

How do you suggest we reduce new cases of FGM ?
I'd go for a combination of education around the lack of medical need for it, along with help from various religious leaders to condemn it too. Then follow it up with a strong effort to identify and prosecute those carrying it out.

Could also run an educational campaign to dissuade male circumcision too, if you can supply convincing medical evidence to support it.

As said before we will do nothing

I suggest we make a form of it legal, carry it out in safe sterile environments.

Then we can all point out that although people don't like it it isint illegal.

[anonymous-user]

Countdown said:

No I don't agree. FGM is illegal. Male circumcision isn't. As I said above I'm reasonably happy with that. So I won't be writing to my MP.

HTH

Type 1a(and certainly IV) FGM being effectively the same as circumcision, means you're fine with mutilating boys, but not girls?
Why do you think this?
Is it cultural, religious, familial, or just because it is legal?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Nanook said:

All you want people to say is "You're right, FGM is terrible, MGM is totally acceptable",

Absolutely untrue. Not my view at all. But you're so hung up on circumcision, you cannot see the woods for the trees. But as you're someone who doesn't think one is worse than the other, it's not surprising. Just not very bright.

[Cotty]

Nanook said:

I haven't seen anyone here saying they support FGM, and even if there are, they're not speaking for anyone else. Everyone seems to agree that it's a despicable thing to be happening. I just think that if we're going to tackle the issue of cutting the genitalia of children for no valid reason, we should deal with both sexes at once.

Whilst I agree with your point, it will probably be easier to tackle FGM as it is currently illegal and therefore easier to prosecute offenders.

[Countdown]

wsurfa said:

Countdown said:

No I don't agree. FGM is illegal. Male circumcision isn't. As I said above I'm reasonably happy with that. So I won't be writing to my MP.

HTH

Type 1a(and certainly IV) FGM being effectively the same as circumcision, means you're fine with mutilating boys, but not girls?
Why do you think this?
Is it cultural, religious, familial, or just because it is legal?

I've no idea about what Type1a or Type IV is.

If it's legal I'm not overly bothered.

HTH

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Cotty said:

Nanook said:

I haven't seen anyone here saying they support FGM, and even if there are, they're not speaking for anyone else. Everyone seems to agree that it's a despicable thing to be happening. I just think that if we're going to tackle the issue of cutting the genitalia of children for no valid reason, we should deal with both sexes at once.

Whilst I agree with your point, it will probably be easier to tackle FGM as it is currently illegal and therefore easier to prosecute offenders.

Exactly. We haven't managed to deal with FGM, in it's relatively small numbers, that's been illegal for years. Why some people think adding millions of cases of circumcision is going to help us eradicate FGM is beyond me.

[WinstonWolf]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Cotty said:

Nanook said:

I haven't seen anyone here saying they support FGM, and even if there are, they're not speaking for anyone else. Everyone seems to agree that it's a despicable thing to be happening. I just think that if we're going to tackle the issue of cutting the genitalia of children for no valid reason, we should deal with both sexes at once.

Whilst I agree with your point, it will probably be easier to tackle FGM as it is currently illegal and therefore easier to prosecute offenders.

Exactly. We haven't managed to deal with FGM, in it's relatively small numbers, that's been illegal for years. Why some people think adding millions of cases of circumcision is going to help us eradicate FGM is beyond me.

We should eradicate all genital mutilation in babies, there's no need for sexism.

You wouldn't let parents choose to circumcise an eighteen year old against their wishes would you?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

WinstonWolf said:

You wouldn't let parents choose to circumcise an eighteen year old against their wishes would you?

I wouldn't let parents chose to give 18 year old a haircut against their wishes. Are you suggesting parents of younger children shouldn't be allowed to cut their hair?

There are plenty of arguments against circumcision, but this one isn't very well thought out.

[Cotty]

Countdown said:

I've no idea about what Type1a or Type IV is.

If it's legal I'm not overly bothered.

There are lot of things that were legal than are no longer legal. The legality of something does not make it right.

[WinstonWolf]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

WinstonWolf said:

You wouldn't let parents choose to circumcise an eighteen year old against their wishes would you?

I wouldn't let parents chose to give 18 year old a haircut against their wishes. Are you suggesting parents of younger children shouldn't be allowed to cut their hair?

There are plenty of arguments against circumcision, but this one isn't very well thought out.

It's excellent because you can't refute it. Same person, same outcome yet one is acceptable just because the victim is a child?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Nanook said:

I've stated several times I'm against cutting parts of the genitalia of non-consenting children.

You're apparently not.

An idiot....and a liar. Nice combo.

[WinstonWolf]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Nanook said:

I've stated several times I'm against cutting parts of the genitalia of non-consenting children.

You're apparently not.

An idiot....and a liar. Nice combo.

You support the cutting of people's genitalia without their consent?