Editor's Blog0 min ago
F G M Lite?
38 Answers
http://
should the milder forms of FGM be legalised in the name of cultural sensitivity?
or would it be the thin end of the wedge?
bearing in mind, of course, that there's no will by the UK authorities to enforce their own law......
should the milder forms of FGM be legalised in the name of cultural sensitivity?
or would it be the thin end of the wedge?
bearing in mind, of course, that there's no will by the UK authorities to enforce their own law......
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Absolutely not.
Imagine this:
Worthless inbecile: "But it's in my culture to get hammered on a Friday night and then come home and knock the missus about. I only give her a gentle slap, though. I try not to leave any cuts or bruises."
A leading brain surgeon "Oh that's OK then!"
The “cultural sensitivities” of the families who wish to carry on mutilating their girls and young women can be best served in countries where they still stone to death women accused of adultery (but not the men, natch). They can head off to any one of them if they wish. The two gynaecologists are idiots to suggest that “mild” mutilation might somehow be acceptable.
Meanwhile for those of us living in the 21st Century it should be reinforced that any mutilation – however “mild” – is not acceptable.
Imagine this:
Worthless inbecile: "But it's in my culture to get hammered on a Friday night and then come home and knock the missus about. I only give her a gentle slap, though. I try not to leave any cuts or bruises."
A leading brain surgeon "Oh that's OK then!"
The “cultural sensitivities” of the families who wish to carry on mutilating their girls and young women can be best served in countries where they still stone to death women accused of adultery (but not the men, natch). They can head off to any one of them if they wish. The two gynaecologists are idiots to suggest that “mild” mutilation might somehow be acceptable.
Meanwhile for those of us living in the 21st Century it should be reinforced that any mutilation – however “mild” – is not acceptable.
//why is MGM legal?//
that's one of the central planks of the argument of supporters of FGM. Here's their argument:-
http://
and here's a link to the "article 50" page.
http://
and a link to the bill that prevents a ban on MGM:-
http://
that's one of the central planks of the argument of supporters of FGM. Here's their argument:-
http://
and here's a link to the "article 50" page.
http://
and a link to the bill that prevents a ban on MGM:-
http://
I am of the opinion that even being born is a form of child abuse. Imagine being forced out of a vagina head first with one's ears catching on the edges ( aah outrageous) all births should be by caesarian section whilst mum is under sedation. Also All little girl babies should be born with a Velcro zip already fitted so that future pregnancies can be dealt with painlessly.
This is what these two cretins said.
//Despite 30 years of advocacy, the prevalence of non-therapeutic female genital alteration (FGA) in minors is stable in many countries. Educational efforts have minimally changed the prevalence of this procedure in regions where it has been widely practiced. In order to better protect female children from the serious and long-term harms of some types of non-therapeutic FGA, we must adopt a more nuanced position that acknowledges a wide spectrum of procedures that alter female genitalia. 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. //
They should be struck off.
//Despite 30 years of advocacy, the prevalence of non-therapeutic female genital alteration (FGA) in minors is stable in many countries. Educational efforts have minimally changed the prevalence of this procedure in regions where it has been widely practiced. In order to better protect female children from the serious and long-term harms of some types of non-therapeutic FGA, we must adopt a more nuanced position that acknowledges a wide spectrum of procedures that alter female genitalia. 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. //
They should be struck off.
Ron, human evolution is how, as a species we find ourselves saddled with a difficult birth process - we walk upright and have brains far larger than any other species, these 2 factors work against each other. we're probably now at the limit of what nature can accommodate. if surgical intervention was permitted as the norm, this would allow evolution to go off in a direction where the consequences coulds not reliably be predicted. childbirth is difficult for some and that's regrettable, but I don't see there's a case to circumvent it in all cases just because engineering science allows us to.
I quite agree with Ron about human childbirth. An absolutely hideous procedure which we (or at least our womenfolk) seem to be alone in suffering in the animal kingdom. Far better to lay eggs and put them in the airing cupboard for nine months :-)
“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.”
There should be no search for a compromise. The “compromise” is illustrated in my “Friday night at the pub” sketch. Compassionate practitioners need to reserve all their compassion for the victims of this abhorrent practice and not allocate any to the perpetrators. People with cultures which require and support the mutilation of girls (however “slight”) need to go elsewhere. There is no place whatsoever for it in the UK.
“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.”
There should be no search for a compromise. The “compromise” is illustrated in my “Friday night at the pub” sketch. Compassionate practitioners need to reserve all their compassion for the victims of this abhorrent practice and not allocate any to the perpetrators. People with cultures which require and support the mutilation of girls (however “slight”) need to go elsewhere. There is no place whatsoever for it in the UK.
Just to play devil's advocate. I was listening to a play the other day and the subject was 'back street' FGM in London. (written by a Somali girl, who I presume knows about these things)
Could they use that in the way the 'pro-abortionists' used back street abortions as part of their campaign?
And, just to be sure, I'm not defending it.
Could they use that in the way the 'pro-abortionists' used back street abortions as part of their campaign?
And, just to be sure, I'm not defending it.
I don't know.
Don't shoot the messengers (the two Gynaecologists)
They are saying that all the "huffing and puffing" of various anti FGM groups coupled with legislation, has made little or no difference to the numbers performed.
So what is to be done? Do we continue "huffing and puffing" OR is there an alternative and the two Drs have put forward a suggestion.
Reclassify the FGM procedure, making it minimally invasive, performed under sterile conditions, avoiding the immediate and long term physical and and psychological complications and thus placating the masses who are against this procedure.
Up to now, present thinking on the subject hasn't worked and the two Gynaecologists have offered an alternative.
I would not describe them as "cretins" or indeed plead for them to be struck off the medical register, but their case assessed in a non emotional ways.
We are looking at FGM through Western eyes and perhaps we should look at it through the eyes of FGM believers.
Don't shoot the messengers (the two Gynaecologists)
They are saying that all the "huffing and puffing" of various anti FGM groups coupled with legislation, has made little or no difference to the numbers performed.
So what is to be done? Do we continue "huffing and puffing" OR is there an alternative and the two Drs have put forward a suggestion.
Reclassify the FGM procedure, making it minimally invasive, performed under sterile conditions, avoiding the immediate and long term physical and and psychological complications and thus placating the masses who are against this procedure.
Up to now, present thinking on the subject hasn't worked and the two Gynaecologists have offered an alternative.
I would not describe them as "cretins" or indeed plead for them to be struck off the medical register, but their case assessed in a non emotional ways.
We are looking at FGM through Western eyes and perhaps we should look at it through the eyes of FGM believers.
Svejk, the same argument could be used in many scenarios. you could argue that the biggest issue with recreational drugs is that they are illegal. thus there's no quality control, etc etc etc so the users have no idea what they're really taking. thus this could be put right by legalisation, as well as providing governments with a nice (great big) tax earner.
