First prosecutions for Female Genital Mutilation

[Mr Clowning]

Have you ever had your kid's teeth removed unnecessarily?

We can use coincidental advantages or disadvantages as arguments 'til the cows come home, although most "for" arguments are easily countered, all are irrelevant if the reason for the removal was purely for traditional/aesthetic/cultural/ritual or religious motives.

 

It remains a direct violation of human rights.

 

I'm not arguing that its been done, or is done, for the wrong or right reason, Its not something I would do to my kids. What I am saying that with this new recent evidence it may be beneficial for some of these countries with high aids rates and lack of education and resources to have it done. I am just highlighting the advantage in some of the 3rd world places that do it anyway.

[cuttsie]

Nothing wrong with male circumcision, my willy is very pleasing to look at and functions like it should so why is male circumcision seen as mutilation by some?

Because some big head chopped of six inches.

[mafya]

Because some big head chopped of six inches.

 

It's only the foreskin that is removed so you don't really lose any length.

[RootsBooster]

It's only the foreskin that is removed so you don't really lose any length.

 

But why cut it off in the first place?

[Mr Clowning]

But why cut it off in the first place?

 

You fry them. Read the back of packet of hoola hoops

[boyfriday]

A differing perspective on the prosecution here..

 

A top gynaecologist has strongly criticised the decision to prosecute a doctor for carrying out female genital mutilation.

 

Dr Katrina Erskine warned that the landmark case announced last week – the first of its kind in the UK – put politics before women’s welfare and risked deterring medical staff from caring for affected women.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2589389/Top-gynaecologist-attacks-political-FGM-prosecution-Case-deter-medics-caring-affected-patients-doctor-warns.html

[janie48]

Most religions practice this to a certain extent though from my experience so its not a personal attack towards any religion or culture in particular.

Which "most religions"?

From what I have read the practice pre-dates Islam and Christianity and is thought to have began in ancient Egypt. So in view of history perhaps its easier to see how it spread round parts of Africa and Asia over time.

 

Why its been allowed to continue after all this time is astounding, but they're are many world organisations and groups campaigning against it, some working actively, where they're allowed to do so.

 

So through methods of education and instruction they have achieved a measure of success, but just not enough apparently.

 

A differing perspective on the prosecution here..

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2589389/Top-gynaecologist-attacks-political-FGM-prosecution-Case-deter-medics-caring-affected-patients-doctor-warns.html

The surgeon surely must have known he was performing a procedure that is against the law, with the risk of prosecution.

[boyfriday]

The surgeon surely must have known he was performing a procedure that is against the law, with the risk of prosecution.

 

I think the inference is the surgeon was operating on a woman who'd already had the procedure carried out on her, within the limitations of surgery that can be effectively carried out on a woman who's had FGM.

[janie48]

I think the inference is the surgeon was operating on a woman who'd already had the procedure carried out on her, within the limitations of surgery that can be effectively carried out on a woman who's had FGM.

Yes but he knew he was performing a repeat FGM to perform a repair didn't he.

It would be terrible if prosecutions ended with the result that the gynaecologist from that Mail article is suggesting would happen.

 

Hopefully she will be mistaken and the Medical establishment will make more effort to issue clearer guidelines to surgeons, because they most certainly need to.

[RootsBooster]

You fry them. Read the back of packet of hoola hoops

 

Ritual/traditional (and completely unecessary) removal of part of an infant's penis is accepted by our society to such an extent that we can joke about it.

 

The equivalent procedure on a female infant (labial circumcision, not to be confused with clitoral circumcision or suturing) falls under the category of FGM and horrifies our society, regardless of the clinical/medical standards of the operation itself.

 

Both are done for the same "reasons" with similar coincidental "advantages" and disadvantages, so why do we accept one and reject the other?