Genital mutilation also occurs in the U.S., activists call on states to make it illegal

[smilesammich 10,727]

7 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Its in the article , I think

no, there's nothing. 

 

this is a statement, it isn't supported by any fact

Quote

 “There are many who are secretly doing it here in the USA,” noted Wahid Boctor, an Egyptian-American and former Director of Arab-American Television. “It is done very secretly and mostly women who do to their kids or grand kids.”

 

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

i was trying to discuss it, because i don't think the two are comparable. 

don't you think banning fgm in this country is a given, since we don't allow child abuse?

In the ideal world yes I think it should be a given. I would want some legal friends (ideally people with medical legal expertise) to comment on the impact it would have on groups pushing towards banning circumcision. That is a topic of discussion in the US.

 

We don't allow child abuse, you are absolutely right. However we DO allow a parent to consent to have the foreskin of their son's ####### snipped off before the child can consent for it themselves. We do that because

1. It is a societal norm for many many families, for religious and personal reasons

2. The risks and negative consequences are reasonably small

3. There are also some minor benefits, though they aren't really applicable for most people in the US

 

Point 1 applies to FGM as well. The difference is point 2/point 3 are both not true of FGM.

 

We allow parents to provide "informed consent" for their children as long as we also as a medical community deem it to be either in the best interest of the child, or at least not harming the child (first do no harm). The decision that circumcision doesn't cause harm though is something that is deeply rooted in culture and practice. Believe me when I say having actually performed the procedure. It is definitely "harm" by the basic sense of the word. You are cutting off skin, it bleeds. It doesn't seem to hurt that much, but we also numb it (many people do complete nerve root blocks of the entire ####### beforehand). It is an ELECTIVE surgical procedure that we allow parents to consent to.

 

I don't know where medical opinion currently lies with regard to elective plastic surgery on minors (It doesn't come up often for me since I work with babies), but I think similar issues could come up there. They are elective, they cause "harm" (they are surgery) and there is no real medical benefit. Maybe not negative consequences either, but still.

[IAMX 3,055]

12 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

no, there's nothing. 

 

this is a statement, it isn't supported by any fact

 

You could actually get plenty of info just going to Wikipedia rather than talking about fact, but it's likely more to do with finding out some rather inconvenient truths about immigrants..

 

http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2015/us-fgmc.aspx

In 2013, there were up to 507,000 U.S. women and girls who had undergone FGM/C or were at risk of the procedure, according to PRB's data analysis. This figure is more than twice the number of women and girls estimated to be at risk in 2000 (228,000). The rapid increase in women and girls at risk reflects an increase in immigration to the United States, rather than an increase in the share of women and girls at risk of being cut.

 

 

[smilesammich 10,727]

10 minutes ago, bcking said:

In the ideal world yes I think it should be a given. I would want some legal friends (ideally people with medical legal expertise) to comment on the impact it would have on groups pushing towards banning circumcision. That is a topic of discussion in the US.

 

We don't allow child abuse, you are absolutely right. However we DO allow a parent to consent to have the foreskin of their son's ####### snipped off before the child can consent for it themselves. We do that because

1. It is a societal norm for many many families, for religious and personal reasons

2. The risks and negative consequences are reasonably small

3. There are also some minor benefits, though they aren't really applicable for most people in the US

 

Point 1 applies to FGM as well. The difference is point 2/point 3 are both not true of FGM.

 

We allow parents to provide "informed consent" for their children as long as we also as a medical community deem it to be either in the best interest of the child, or at least not harming the child (first do no harm). The decision that circumcision doesn't cause harm though is something that is deeply rooted in culture and practice. Believe me when I say having actually performed the procedure. It is definitely "harm" by the basic sense of the word. You are cutting off skin, it bleeds. It doesn't seem to hurt that much, but we also numb it (many people do complete nerve root blocks of the entire ####### beforehand). It is an ELECTIVE surgical procedure that we allow parents to consent to.

 

I don't know where medical opinion currently lies with regard to elective plastic surgery on minors (It doesn't come up often for me since I work with babies), but I think similar issues could come up there. They are elective, they cause "harm" (they are surgery) and there is no real medical benefit. Maybe not negative consequences either, but still.

i still don't think the two are comparable. if circumcision removed the potential for orgasm i don't think it would have ever caught on in the states as a safety precaution..do you?

i don't even understand how fgm could be considered 'elective plastic surgery'.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

4 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

i still don't think the two are comparable. if circumcision removed the potential for orgasm i don't think it would have ever caught on in the states as a safety precaution..do you?

i don't even understand how fgm could be considered 'elective plastic surgery'.

The two arent even close not even on paper .Its ludicrous to even compare the two things

 

circumcision might have various health benefits, including:

• Easier hygiene. 
• Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. 
• Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. 
• Prevention of penile problems. 
• Decreased risk of penile cancer. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Nature Boy Flair said:

I am deeply insulted you would think I would post something like that to expose Islam 

oh hush, no you're not.

[yuna628 9,680]

39 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

The two arent even close not even on paper .Its ludicrous to even compare the two things

 

circumcision might have various health benefits, including:

• Easier hygiene. 
• Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. 
• Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. 
• Prevention of penile problems. 
• Decreased risk of penile cancer. 

Sorry but no. These claims go around a lot, but there's not a ton of evidence out there in favor of the subject. In many areas of Europe the thought of circumcision for any other reason but religion purposes is not really considered in the way the practice was strangely so accepted in America. You can certainly look at the literature on this that is especially critical of studies and claims that say otherwise. Not saying in some individuals it shouldn't be considered, but if it were an accepted fact (and it's quite disputed these days) we'd most likely see the rates of these issues in the uncircumcised in Europe quite high. And it's not. There is no clear right or wrong answer for this. It's why it's a parent-doctor decision. Personally it's choosing to mutilate your child for reasons that don't hold as much weight as they once did. There is no known medical indication for having it as a routine practice and it is on the decline in the US. Parents should be informed of the risks and or any potential benefits. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/science/benefits-of-circumcision-outweigh-risks-pediatric-group-says.html

 

Any genital cutting of a child - boy or girl for religious reasons, is what it is. For religious reasons.

Edited March 28, 2017 by yuna628

[bcking 3,157]

35 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

The two arent even close not even on paper .Its ludicrous to even compare the two things

 

circumcision might have various health benefits, including:

• Easier hygiene. 
• Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. 
• Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. 
• Prevention of penile problems. 
• Decreased risk of penile cancer. 

Yes they are very different. However they do have similarities. Once again issues are nuanced. 

 

The benefits you listed are mostly questionable in a first world society. Easier hygiene is a not really that important here. Hygiene is easy either way with easy access to bathing and showers. The risk of a UTI is marginal at best. The reduced risk of STIs is applicable to other populations (as well as a questionable decrease risk of HIV specifically), like in Africa where rates are higher. "Penile problems" is rather vague. Also penile cancer is associated with various infections that are have very low incidence.

 

Again in a certain population it may help, but it is still a mostly elective surgical removal of tissue that is done to an infant before they can make informed consent themselves.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

1 hour ago, Transborderwife said:

Just reading female genital mutilation makes me shut my legs tighter ?

So they were shut before you read this? Your poor husband.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

21 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

So they were shut before you read this? Your poor husband.

I didn't say that my mouth was shut...ok I'll stop before I get in trouble 

[bcking 3,157]

2 hours ago, smilesammich said:

i still don't think the two are comparable. if circumcision removed the potential for orgasm i don't think it would have ever caught on in the states as a safety precaution..do you?

i don't even understand how fgm could be considered 'elective plastic surgery'.

"removal of the potential for orgasm" is a significant side effect, of course. However just because one has more severe side effects doesn't mean you can't compare them. Of course you can compare them:

1. They are both surgical procedures

2. They are both performed on external genitalia

 

The procedures themselves are readily comparable. Now once you do compare them of course you will find that one of them has severe side effects that severely alter the quality of life of the person, while the other one is quite tolerable and the more severe side effects are very rare. That is the POINT of comparing them.

 

My point was that we as a society have decided that one elective/optional surgical procedure performed on a minor who cannot give informed consent is okay, while the other is not. Even if the side effects of circumcision are very small, so are the benefits. In a 1st world country with STI/HIV rates like we have in the USA, the benefits of circumcision are minimal/non-existent. Yet we are okay with parents consenting for us to surgically removal a piece of their child's genitalia. You have to at least accept the similarities. One is FAR FAR worse than the other of course. But they are both still surgical procedures that have no medical necessity being performed on an infant due to a parent's choice.

 

EDIT: 

 

Another nuance that I don't think we've brought up are the different types of FGM. Though honestly they are all wrong, though III/IV are much much worse.

Edited March 28, 2017 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,597]

10 minutes ago, bcking said:

"removal of the potential for orgasm" is a significant side effect, of course. However just because one has more severe side effects doesn't mean you can't compare them. Of course you can compare them:

1. They are both surgical procedures

2. They are both performed on external genitalia

 

The procedures themselves are readily comparable. Now once you do compare them of course you will find that one of them has severe side effects that severely alter the quality of life of the person, while the other one is quite tolerable and the more severe side effects are very rare. That is the POINT of comparing them.

 

My point was that we as a society have decided that one elective/optional surgical procedure performed on a minor who cannot give informed consent is okay, while the other is not. Even if the side effects of circumcision are very small, so are the benefits. In a 1st world country with STI/HIV rates like we have in the USA, the benefits of circumcision are minimal/non-existent. Yet we are okay with parents consenting for us to surgically removal a piece of their child's genitalia. You have to at least accept the similarities. One is FAR FAR worse than the other of course. But they are both still surgical procedures that have no medical necessity being performed on an infant due to a parent's choice.

I would think FGM would be more synonymous with man becoming a eunuch rather than male circumcision?

[smilesammich 10,727]

13 minutes ago, bcking said:

"removal of the potential for orgasm" is a significant side effect, of course. However just because one has more severe side effects doesn't mean you can't compare them. Of course you can compare them:

1. They are both surgical procedures

2. They are both performed on external genitalia

 

The procedures themselves are readily comparable. Now once you do compare them of course you will find that one of them has severe side effects that severely alter the quality of life of the person, while the other one is quite tolerable and the more severe side effects are very rare. That is the POINT of comparing them.

 

My point was that we as a society have decided that one elective/optional surgical procedure performed on a minor who cannot give informed consent is okay, while the other is not. Even if the side effects of circumcision are very small, so are the benefits. In a 1st world country with STI/HIV rates like we have in the USA, the benefits of circumcision are minimal/non-existent. Yet we are okay with parents consenting for us to surgically removal a piece of their child's genitalia. You have to at least accept the similarities. One is FAR FAR worse than the other of course. But they are both still surgical procedures that have no medical necessity being performed on an infant due to a parent's choice.

in my mind the fact that fgm removes the ability to orgasm negates all similarities. they might both be surgical procedures w/ no medical necessity but the end result over a lifespan is too different to compare. why do we have to continue to compare the two once we get to the gaping difference? as a society we accepted circumcision because we thought it benefited the child. i dont see how fgm is ever a benefit, outside of culture norms in specific countries. 

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

I would think FGM would be more synonymous with man becoming a eunuch rather than male circumcision?

You bring up a good point. However those are actually quite difficult to compare since castration is removal of the gonads, which you don't do in FGM since they are internal. So there are also problems with that comparison as well.

 

Some forms of FGM would be more comparable to a "penectomy", which would be removal of the entire #######.

[smilesammich 10,727]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I would think FGM would be more synonymous with man becoming a eunuch rather than male circumcision?

agreed