Check out this story here:
Here.
This is a topic you've probably heard of before and has been hotly debated for some time:
Female Genital Mutilation. An ancient practice for many tribes in Africa done for a combination of religious, cultural/ethnic, and social custom reasons.
Interestingly, as this news story tells, a man in the US is being brought up on charges for the practice.
Here's my question:
If this practice s illegal and a man is arrested and put on trial for it here in the US... Why isn't male circumcision also illegal?
It seems to be completely parallel:
It is done for religious, cultural/ethnic, and/or social custom reasons. It is a very similiar practice: a remove of part of the genitals on a child (that is, before the child has the ability to voice their reasoned consent to the practice).
What do you think? Currently in this country male circumcision is of course legal, but female circumcision is illegal.
Anybody have any problems with that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
i do not think the situations are the same. for one, the purpose of the female mutilation is to not allow her to enjoy sex- basically she loses all feeling, thus removing her drive for sex. for the male circumcision, this is not the case. its usually done today mostly for health issues. the dangers involved in female circumcision is very high- its usually not sterile, and causes severe bleeding. male circumcision is usually done at teh hospital, in sterile conditions. i really don't think there is a way to justify allowing female circumcision- if you are trying to compare it to male circumcision.
I think the practice is disgusting and appaling. If you've seen any pictures, the amount of blood loss and scarring is unbelievable. We as americans think it is appaling, but you must remember this is tradition in most African countries and is celebrated and is a milestone in a woman's life. Or so they say... We could tell them to stop and that it is dangerous. But nothing more would come of it. They will continue their traditional practices no matter how appalling they are to us. And besides, who are we to tell them what is right and wrong?
I really dont see a parallel between them because the different circumcisions are different. Although they are both done for religious and cultural reasons, the male circumcision simply removes the foreskin, it doesn't do damage in any way and in the end helps with sanitary issues. However, the female circumscions mutilates the genital areas and can kill the girls sex drive and any sense of feeling in the genital area.
Because the parallel does not exist, I believe you can't judge whether one should be illegal based off the legality of the other. Male circumcision should be legal because it doesn't hurt the male, while the female version should be because of the effects and damages.
In response to what Anonymous said...
"the dangers involved in female circumcision is very high- its usually not sterile, and causes severe bleeding. male circumcision is usually done at teh hospital, in sterile conditions"
The question of female circumcision is not about the environment, but the effects and thus the impact of it. Just because some people perform this proceedure with unsterile instruments in dirty environments does not validate calling female circumcision wrong. If male circumcision, which the posts here agree is ok, were to be done in the same environment, bad effects would happen. The question which needs to be answered is whether female circumcision, performed in the same environment as male circumcision, has any permanent, adverse effects. If it does, then yes, it should not happen. If no, then we can't say that it shouldn't happen because some doctors in Africa don't have the same resources that American doctors have.
Post a Comment