[Sunflower_Mommy2003]

[DaisyUK]

OMG, that is one scary list.

How come all that lot was ignored when FGM got banned?

[smt]

OMG, that is one scary list.

How come all that lot was ignored when FGM got banned?[/b]

Obviously, there are "benefits" to removing any body part, the key is when do those benefits outweigh the risks enough to justify the procedure. "Benefits" alone are NOT justification for removing a normal, healthy, functional, sensitive part of a person's body, especially when done without their consent. Routine infant circumcision has NO significant chance of a benefit for any boy, that is why NO major medical organization in the world recommends the procedure.

[Anakin]

Doesn't anybody grow tired of these? First infant vasectomies....then grave robbing for body parts....now this.

I'm guessing this will be futile but has any organization provided a risk-benefit analysis to "infant labia" removal? If so, can you please present it; that would be helpful. The only relevant discussion by a medical organization I'm aware of is as follows

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/c...trics;102/1/153

Can you debate the issue by actually talking about IMC or is there some as of yet unkown purpose to all these ridiculous comparisons?

[Inowno]

Doesn't anybody grow tired of these? First infant vasectomies....then grave robbing for body parts....now this.[/b]

the truthful and obviuos never griow tird when thay need bring pointed out to those who wish to ignore them--it is called trying to get people to think outside of the boxes thay put themselves into.

I'm guessing this will be futile but has any organization provided a risk-benefit analysis to "infant labia" removal? If so, can you please present it; that would be helpful. The only relevant discussion by a medical organization I'm aware of is as follows[/b]

Thanks for your guess, but these are obvious to rational people.

Can you debate the issue by actually talking about IMC or is there some as of yet unkown purpose to all these ridiculous comparisons?[/b]

Can you REFUTE them, that IS after all, a required part of the debate process--regardless of the acronyms you invent?

[smt]

Can you debate the issue by actually talking about IMC or is there some as of yet unkown purpose to all these ridiculous comparisons?[/b]

The point is that a list of benefits are meaningless unless they are shown to outweigh the risks.

[Mom2DavidandAaron]

Doesn't anybody grow tired of these? First infant vasectomies....then grave robbing for body parts....now this.[/b]

Don't forget child abuse....

ITA!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

How come all that lot was ignored when FGM got banned?[/b]

[/b][/quote]

That's a really good question.

Sue

[ryansmama]

Don't forget child abuse....
[/b]

WOuld you consider it abusive to cut off a baby girl's labia? Why or why not?

[Mom2DavidandAaron]

WOuld you consider it abusive to cut off a baby girl's labia? Why or why not?
[/b]

Yes, but as I've said SO many times... boys have a penis, girls have a vagina. You guys are really finding this fact very confusing, right?
The day you can provide proof that FGM and IMC are EXACTLY the same (not kinda because they're both in the same anatomical area...), that's the day I would consider the FGM argument valid. Until then... another beautiful red herring.
So to answer your question, yes. I think FGM (in the manner it is traditionally performed) is child abuse because of the physical, psychological and emotional consequences it brings. Because it is performed in unsanitary conditions, by people with little or no experience, sometimes using the same instrument in many girls and using anything from pure alcohol to dog poop as "post care". Yes, that's definitely child abuse.
A medical procedure that's performed in sanitary condition, by trained professionals, using proper pain relief and aftercare meds, that carries some potential medical benefits and is considered a very safe procedure by all major medical and human rights organizations in the world isn't child abuse. Unless you want to consider vaccines child abuse as well.
Here are the differences between FGM and IMC:

An article from the New England Journal of Medicine

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/3...pe2=tf_ipsecsha

(WARNING! Link contains pictures!)

Here are the responses to this article, including acommentary by the author:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/332/3/188

"I use the term ``female circumcision'' to acknowledge its cultural importance, the positive perception of this procedure on the part of those who practice it. These characteristics constitute the main similarity of female circumcision to male circumcision. The difference is that, unlike male circumcision, the most commonly described types of female circumcision are anatomically and functionally mutilating.

There is no universal consensus that routine circumcision of male children is an acceptable medical procedure for preventive care. It remains a religious practice for some and a selective nonreligious practice for others, with or without medical consent. Whether male circumcision is medically harmless or even beneficial remains a matter of debate and study."

Quotes:

"From the perspective of public health, female circumcision is much more damaging than male circumcision. The mildest form, clitoridectomy, is anatomically equivalent to amputation of the penis."

"In my extensive clinical experience as a physician in Sudan, and after a careful review of the literature of the past 15 years, I have not found a single case of female circumcision in which only the skin surrounding the clitoris is removed, without damage to the clitoris itself."
Meaning he hasn't found a single account of FGM that is physically comparable to male circumcision.

http://www.euro.who.int/document/e60522.pdf

"According to Dr. T Turman of WHO headquarters, there is a technical difference between male and female genital mutilation. The removal of the clitoral prepuce (female circumcision) is equivalent to male circumcision and constitutes less than 1% of all female genital mutilations. In young girls this procedure is extremely difficult to perform (Sharon: hence the previous comment that there's nto a single case of female circumcision that doesn't entitle some damage tothe clitoris itself, making it different from male circumcision). In onver 95% of cases, the clitoris, the labia minora and (in some cases) the labia majora are excised and the vulva sewn up. The biological equivalent in the male would be partial to almost two-thirds removal of the male sexual organ, inculding in some cases removal of tissue from the scrotum followed by stitiching the remaining tissue."

So you may continue trying very hard to further your cause using sensationalist methods, but NO, I didn't abuse my child. And if you truly think I did, feel free to report me to the proper authorities, seeing as child abuse is illegal.

[smt]

The day you can provide proof that FGM and IMC are EXACTLY the same (not kinda because they're both in the same anatomical area...), that's the day I would consider the FGM argument valid. Until then... another beautiful red herring.[/b]

The fallacy of your argument is that MGM and FGM must be EXACTLY the same for MGM to be unethical. Sorry, I am not buying into your little game. The ethics of unnecessarily cutting an innocent child's genitals are the same... boy or girl. Both have a right to their normal, healthy, functional, sensitive body parts. I am really wich you could understand this simple concept.

[jakew]

The fallacy of your argument is that MGM and FGM must be EXACTLY the same for MGM to be unethical. Sorry, I am not buying into your little game. The ethics of unnecessarily cutting an innocent child's genitals are the same... boy or girl. Both have a right to their normal, healthy, functional, sensitive body parts. I am really wich you could understand this simple concept.
[/b]

It's not a hard concept to understand. However, understanding is not the same as agreement.

You see, you are reasoning from this 'right to genital integrity' to find certain acts unethical. This is obviously meaningless if one does not buy into this concept.

On the other hand, reasoning from a benefit/harm analysis and the obligation not to harm clearly shows that at least most of the forms of FGC are unethical, whereas male circumcision is not.

Do you understand that these two approaches can often lead to the same conclusion, but do not always do so?

[smt]

You see, you are reasoning from this 'right to genital integrity' to find certain acts unethical. This is obviously meaningless if one does not buy into this concept.[/b]

Are you again asserting that humans do not have a right to bodily integrity?

[DanBlackham]

You see, you are reasoning from this 'right to genital integrity' to find certain acts unethical. This is obviously meaningless if one does not buy into this concept.[/b]

The right to racial equality was meaningless to supporters of apartheid, but that does not make the right to racial equality any less valid.

On the other hand, reasoning from a benefit/harm analysis and the obligation not to harm clearly shows that at least most of the forms of FGC are unethical, whereas male circumcision is not.[/b]

The fact that you have not been able to cite any other surgery that doctors will perform on children with a similar ratio of medical benefits to medical risks and harms as elective, non-therapeutic circumcision is a good indication that elective, non-therapeutic circumcision is a unique exception to the normal standard of care that doctors use for all other pediatric surgeries.

[Mom2DavidandAaron]

The fallacy of your argument is that MGM and FGM must be EXACTLY the same for MGM to be unethical. Sorry, I am not buying into your little game. The ethics of unnecessarily cutting an innocent child's genitals are the same... boy or girl. Both have a right to their normal, healthy, functional, sensitive body parts. I am really wich you could understand this simple concept.
[/b]

it's not my little game (although I'm very flattered). It's the way the world works. If you want to compare two things, those two things must be equal. If not, I can take any two things I wish and compare them on a ridiculous level and say they're the same when they're not. By your definition I can say that your fighting to make IMC illegal is comparable to the Inquisition. Are the two the same? Why not if both are aimed at forbidding a certain portion of the population from freely practicing their religion? Just because two things may be remotely related that doesn't mean they have to be treated equally when they're not.
But, I provided in my post several statements of why FGM and IMC cannot be compared for legal and ethical issues. I backed up my claim with opinions and facts from experts that agree that male circumcision shouldn¿t be treated equally to FGM because they're not the same. You've only given us your very personal opinion, but if you wish to back up yours with facts, feel free to do so.

[Inowno]

The fallacy of your argument is that MGM and FGM must be EXACTLY the same for MGM to be unethical. Sorry, I am not buying into your little game. The ethics of unnecessarily cutting an innocent child's genitals are the same... boy or girl. Both have a right to their normal, healthy, functional, sensitive body parts. I am really wich you could understand this simple concept.

It's not a hard concept to understand. However, understanding is not the same as agreement.[/b]

So, are you going to present evidence that they are EXACTLY the same, or fall back on your inability to understand the concept?

You see, you are reasoning from this 'right to genital integrity' to find certain acts unethical. This is obviously meaningless if one does not buy into this concept.

On the other hand, reasoning from a benefit/harm analysis and the obligation not to harm clearly shows that at least most of the forms of FGC are unethical, whereas male circumcision is not.[/b]

And using this arguement of benefit/hard are you going to present the REASONING that you use to arrive at this pretended difference?

Do you understand that these two approaches can often lead to the same conclusion, but do not always do so?[/b]

Do you understand that if both sides use logic and reasoning that they cannot come to different conclusions that ARE reasonable?

[Ms-Kitty]

Do you understand that if both sides use logic and reasoning that they cannot come to different conclusions that ARE reasonable?[/b]

Untrue. Example:

Two people have a two-tier chocolate cake and a plate of fresh strawberries in front of them. Neither has any food allergies, and both like and enjoy chocolate and strawberries. Both know that the chocolate cake has more calories and fat, both know that the strawberries have more fiber and Vitamin C. Each person is allowed to pick EXACTLY ONE desert choice from the two. Person A chooses strawberries, Person B chooses the chocolate cake.

Why? Personal LOGICAL and REASONABLE choice.

Person A may be on a diet and worried about the extra calories and fat in the cake. Or maybe she isn't "regular" right now, and wants the extra fiber from the strawberries. Or maybe she has been fighting a cold and knows that just 10 strawberries will give her 140% of the USRDA of Vitamin C. Or maybe, just right at the moment when she had to decide, the strawberries were more tempting. Person A may also be thinking that a few minutes of "chocolate bliss" won't be worth it for her in the long run, as she will feel guilty about eating the fattening high calorie cake for the rest of the day.

Person B may be on a diet and worried about the extra calories and fat in the cake, but has been really "good" for the past month and wants to treat herself. Or maybe she's quite "regular" and doesn't need the extra fiber from the strawberries. Or maybe she has been fighting a cold, but would rather take a Vitamin C capsule or drink some OJ than eat strawberries today. Or maybe, just right at the moment when she had to decide, the chocolate cake was more tempting. Person B may decide that the few minutes of "chocolate bliss" is a worthwhile price to pay for feeling guilty about eating the fattening high calorie cake for the rest of the day.

Two reasonable, logical people, with the same information and the same choices, choosing different outcomes in a reasonable, logical manner.

~~Amanda

[DanBlackham]

Just because two things may be remotely related that doesn't mean they have to be treated equally when they're not.[/b]

Elective, non-therapeutic circumcision is only remotely related to a valid medical procedure. There is no medical condition present that requires surgery for treatment. There is no medical indication for the doctor to cut off a normal, healthy, functional part of the boy's penis.

Elective, non-therapeutic circumcision has more in common with other forms of permanent body modification like tattoos, body piercing, a female genital cutting, etc. than it does with a valid medical procedure. If parents tried to pierce their son's penis for cultural or religious reasons, they would probably be reported to the child protection agency. Cutting off a normal, healthy part of a boy's penis is more damaging that piercing his penis.

[jakew]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

The fallacy of your argument is that MGM and FGM must be EXACTLY the same for MGM to be unethical. Sorry, I am not buying into your little game. The ethics of unnecessarily cutting an innocent child's genitals are the same... boy or girl. Both have a right to their normal, healthy, functional, sensitive body parts. I am really wich you could understand this simple concept.

It's not a hard concept to understand. However, understanding is not the same as agreement.[/b]

So, are you going to present evidence that they are EXACTLY the same, or fall back on your inability to understand the concept?[/b][/quote]

What on earth are you talking about?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

You see, you are reasoning from this 'right to genital integrity' to find certain acts unethical. This is obviously meaningless if one does not buy into this concept.

On the other hand, reasoning from a benefit/harm analysis and the obligation not to harm clearly shows that at least most of the forms of FGC are unethical, whereas male circumcision is not.[/b]

And using this arguement of benefit/hard are you going to present the REASONING that you use to arrive at this pretended difference?[/b][/quote]

See the AAP policy and explanatory letter, for example.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

Do you understand that these two approaches can often lead to the same conclusion, but do not always do so?[/b]

Do you understand that if both sides use logic and reasoning that they cannot come to different conclusions that ARE reasonable?
[/b][/quote]

That's only true if both sides start from identical axioms and data, and furthermore that the logic and reasoning is sound. When one side wants to claim that medical science is not a science, that the FGC law makes male circumcision illegal, that reality means rates of disease in the US and selected other countries, and so on, all bets are off.

[Inowno]

That's only true if both sides start from identical axioms and data, and furthermore that the logic and reasoning is sound. When one side wants to claim that medical science is not a science, that the FGC law makes male circumcision illegal, that reality means rates of disease in the US and selected other countries, and so on, all bets are off.[/b]

Reality is the starting point,, REASONING is REASONING.. the conclusions must be the same for these conditions. Merely claiming reality does not exist does not invalidate this.

And science has certain criteria that must be met, or it does not qualify as a science.

Inability to connect two desparate pieces of information also does not invalidate the logical conclusion.

The rates are the rates, denial or calling them something else also does not change the logical conclusion.

The bet is still on, and the bet is that nothing more tangible then these words will be forthcoming.