Mother jailed for refusing to have 4 year old son circumsized

[HannahT]

Again - we defend MGM by appealing to one set of cultural sensitivities, but decry FGM despite the cultural sensitivities of those who find it a valuable procedure.

I'm saying we need to be consistent, one way or the other, here. I'd much rather all genital mutilation for stupid reasons (not that there are really any good reasons for it) be done away with, rather than making facile arguments as to why it's an atrocity when done to females but totally ok when done to males

I'm not against people NOT doing circumcision, but at least in most cases its done in the hospital.

Its completely different in my eyes if a women makes a decision due to her culture, and feeling it would bring her to full womanhood. I would assume she also had it done in a medical atmosphere.

Most of the time FGM is decried because of the way they do it, and for the reasons they do it. That may not be the case in the story you linked to, but the other stories are indeed the reason people are upset. Many places believe that if you don't do this to girls it will lead to infidelity. That pleasure with her husband is taboo. They hold the child down before the age of 10, and they slice it off with a razor blade. It's NOT done in a medical faculty, but out in the open on the dirt - or under a tent in the dirt. Besides the fact they are taking away her sexuality in marriage - she is also is prone to infection, etc. That could lead to being sterile or a host of other things.

Again, most of the time here in the west it was done - they felt at the time - for medical reasons for the boys. They had their reasons, and they felt - at the time - it would help him down the road. Now, with education people can make a better informed decision. Many aren't doing it anymore, and I know when my son was born it was a choice. He is 18, and I know parents had the choice before then as well. It really had nothing to do with MANHOOD as the women you linked to.

You may need to be consistent, but I feel that women had her choice...and she has that right. It's not made from the same set of reasons, and I know many parents don't choose to do that to their sons - here anyway - to much anymore. There will always be some.

So, no I don't see those two circumstances the same at all. The second type of FGM that I spoke of is due to superstition for the most part. lol if we must be consistent then insist the men of their tribes - or areas of the world - do something to themselves to cure infidelity. We both know they won't do that, because of the culture infidelity is only taboo when one gender does it.

Many people are more decrying the intent - or motive - for it being done more than anything. They feel they can control their women better, and they way they do it? No medical safety involved shows you the value they place towards the women in that circumstance. Circumcision has always be done for different reasons. Mostly religious and medical purposes.

There is WAY more to this, and we need to be able to see that. It's way to complicated to be consistent.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

A thread clean up was done. Folks, the topic of the thread is in the OP. It is a court case. it is not about female genital mutilation. And a few shared a bit too much personal nformation. Plus there was some flaming. Please stick to the topic.

 

[SuperCloud]

Most of the time FGM is decried because of the way they do it, and for the reasons they do it. That may not be the case in the story you linked to, but the other stories are indeed the reason people are upset. Many places believe that if you don't do this to girls it will lead to infidelity. That pleasure with her husband is taboo. They hold the child down before the age of 10, and they slice it off with a razor blade. It's NOT done in a medical faculty, but out in the open on the dirt - or under a tent in the dirt. Besides the fact they are taking away her sexuality in marriage - she is also is prone to infection, etc. That could lead to being sterile or a host of other things.

Again, most of the time here in the west it was done - they felt at the time - for medical reasons for the boys. They had their reasons, and they felt - at the time - it would help him down the road.

The ancient Jewish practice of circumcision was not carried out in hospitals. Yet the practice endured. And the Catholic West did not circumcise their boys. In fact, Jews looked no different than many white Spaniards, and during the Inquisition times they pulled down the trousers of the suspected man to see if he was circumcised or not. If he was then they reasoned he was ethnically Jewish even if being a "converso" (Jewish convert to Christianity). So, no, it was not carried out throughout the entire West merely for medical reasons. In the USA it has been customary that Christian boys get circumcised--even Catholic American boys, as I was. But for centuries Catholic Spaniards didn't really engage in this custom passed down from Jews.

The objection to female circumcision comes mainly from Western people due to Western sensibilities. If you object to anything you'll high light and only focus on cases were tragedies result. I'm not sure, but I'm hazarding a guess at some point some tragedies have occurred among male babies that have been circumcised. I think that is bound to happen with any practice of body modification involving sharp instruments.

Eh... I have plenty of tattoos and I still hear people in the medical community warn HIV can result from getting tattoos. Which is true when instruments are infected. But for most of us tattoos have not resulted in any grand tragedy. But that does not mean it won't happen at times.

 

[SuperCloud]

MOD HAT

A thread clean up was done. Folks, the topic of the thread is in the OP. It is a court case. it is not about female genital mutilation. And a few shared a bit too much personal nformation. Plus there was some flaming. Please stick to the topic.

Oh, posted mine right after you posted this, and I didn't see this post before I hit the button to post it.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I think the issue here seems to be custody battles.

It probably could have been equally about something else. Mom and dad split up; dad has access, not custody; mom wants to pierce the boy's ears; dad says he disagrees; social worker says, Let Judge Smith sort it out. And so it goes...

 

[faroukfarouk]

Eh... I have plenty of tattoos and I still hear people in the medical community warn HIV can result from getting tattoos. Which is true when instruments are infected. But for most of us tattoos have not resulted in any grand tragedy. But that does not mean it won't happen at times.

Are any faith related in design?

 

[Fenny the Fox]

I think the issue here seems to be custody battles.

It probably could have been equally about something else. Mom and dad split up; dad has access, not custody; mom wants to pierce the boy's ears; dad says he disagrees; social worker says, Let Judge Smith sort it out. And so it goes...

Just a side note, since you mentioned piercings and such:
I honestly think that even ear piercings should really be generally age limited just as many other piercings and tattoos. Let the kid reach 15, 16 (maybe even older, depending on the specific subject - some cosmetic surgeries maybe a bit older, rather than the lower end of te scale) and then decide for themselves - be it a piercing, a tattoo, circumcision, a boob job, whatever is not actually medically necessary.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Just a side note, since you mentioned piercings and such:
I honestly think that even ear piercings should really be generally age limited just as many other piercings and tattoos. Let the kid reach 15, 16 (maybe even older, depending on the specific subject - some cosmetic surgeries maybe a bit older, rather than the lower end of te scale) and then decide for themselves - be it a piercing, a tattoo, circumcision, a boob job, whatever is not actually medically necessary.

This opinion is fine, except that any attempts to ban it would automatically make hundreds of millions of Hispanic families across the Americas feel threatened by cultural imperialism: it's the custom in Latin American hospitals, unless families opt out, for maternity nurses to pierce baby girls' ears.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

This opinion is fine, except that any attempts to ban it would automatically make hundreds of millions of Hispanic families across the Americas feel threatened by cultural imperialism: it's the custom in Latin American hospitals, unless families opt out, for maternity nurses to pierce baby girls' ears.

I never said it wouldn't cause some issues at the onset, I merely said I think it would be more reasonable. I don't really understand why we focus on freedom of expression in this nation then allow parents to force something like this on a child.

But that is me. I know most people will not agree with me, and that is fine. I like to see people with different opinions - only way to get a grasp on the world and the way people think. And I like understanding people.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I never said it wouldn't cause some issues at the onset, I merely said I think it would be more reasonable. I don't really understand why we focus on freedom of expression in this nation then allow parents to force something like this on a child.

But that is me. I know most people will not agree with me, and that is fine. I like to see people with different opinions - only way to get a grasp on the world and the way people think. And I like understanding people.

It's interesting how at a subjective level many 18 year olds feel that getting a tattoo is almost obligatory. Not in a legal sense, but in the sense of a strong expectation. Sometimes some young people have probably felt influenced by peer pressure to do it, rather than as a wholly personal decision.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

It's interesting how at a subjective level many 18 year olds feel that getting a tattoo is almost obligatory. Not in a legal sense, but in the sense of a strong expectation. Sometimes some young people have probably felt influenced by peer pressure to do it, rather than as a wholly personal decision.

This is true, it certainly does happen.

And the same for girl's getting their ears pierced if they weren't done when younger - in some areas it is considered odd not to do so.

 

[faroukfarouk]

This is true, it certainly does happen.

And the same for girl's getting their ears pierced if they weren't done when younger - in some areas it is considered odd not to do so.

In the late 70s and 80s the teen years started to be the time when nearly all girls (and often their moms) got doubles done; peer pressure can be very strong.

 

[HannahT]

The ancient Jewish practice of circumcision was not carried out in hospitals. Yet the practice endured. And the Catholic West did not circumcise their boys. In fact, Jews looked no different than many white Spaniards, and during the Inquisition times they pulled down the trousers of the suspected man to see if he was circumcised or not. If he was then they reasoned he was ethnically Jewish even if being a "converso" (Jewish convert to Christianity). So, no, it was not carried out throughout the entire West merely for medical reasons. In the USA it has been customary that Christian boys get circumcised--even Catholic American boys, as I was. But for centuries Catholic Spaniards didn't really engage in this custom passed down from Jews.

I was speaking in general SuperCloud. I'm sure we could fill a book or two with all the different circumstances. I figured the temple circumcisions were a given - that is why I only used the word religious in what I said. It's still used today for to hold hatred against individuals.

 

[Followers4christ]

Why Circumcision Lowers the Risk of HIV Transmission.

Do you also know that removing breast tissue (Mastectomy) can dramatically reduce breast cancer. Breast cancer is the leading cause for women's death. Should we force all women to have their breast tissue removed?

When circumcision only reduces the risk of UTI and HIV by less then one percent. There are just as much if not more chance of adverse affects in circumcision than not circumcising including cutting too much skin off, cutting off not enough, infection of the wound, hepititis, hiv, other blood borne illnesses, and fusion of the healing skin.

Not to mention in this case there could be negative psychological effects resulting from circumcision due to his age.

 

[Gadarene]

Most of the time FGM is decried because of the way they do it, and for the reasons they do it. That may not be the case in the story you linked to, but the other stories are indeed the reason people are upset. Many places believe that if you don't do this to girls it will lead to infidelity. That pleasure with her husband is taboo. They hold the child down before the age of 10, and they slice it off with a razor blade. It's NOT done in a medical faculty, but out in the open on the dirt - or under a tent in the dirt. Besides the fact they are taking away her sexuality in marriage - she is also is prone to infection, etc. That could lead to being sterile or a host of other things.

None of what you have brought up here is inapplicable to circumcision. It was instituted for reasons of controlling sex, from Maimonides to John Harvey Kellogg. There are a lot of other reasons why it is done, many of which are similar to the reasons people support FGM. Plenty of male circumcisions are done in anything but sterile conditions, but we're not arguing for sterile circumcision of both genders, are we?

In addition, even ritual nicking of the clitoral hood in sterile settings has been decried as genital mutilation.

So no, nothing here distinguishes FGM from circumcision.

Again, most of the time here in the west it was done - they felt at the time - for medical reasons for the boys. They had their reasons, and they felt - at the time - it would help him down the road. Now, with education people can make a better informed decision. Many aren't doing it anymore, and I know when my son was born it was a choice. He is 18, and I know parents had the choice before then as well. It really had nothing to do with MANHOOD as the women you linked to.

You are still talking about having some kind of choice over the bodily integrity of your son in a way that simply is not tolerated when it comes to infant females.

You may need to be consistent, but I feel that women had her choice...and she has that right. It's not made from the same set of reasons, and I know many parents don't choose to do that to their sons - here anyway - to much anymore. There will always be some.

Woman....vs parents of sons. Consistency would be nice indeed.

Many people are more decrying the intent - or motive - for it being done more than anything. They feel they can control their women better, and they way they do it? No medical safety involved shows you the value they place towards the women in that circumstance. Circumcision has always be done for different reasons. Mostly religious and medical purposes.

They all amount to nonsense in the end. Babies will not be having sex, and we can surely deal with UTIs better than chopping a body part off, this is like solving carpal tunnel by cutting people's hands off.

As for "my god told me too", that can take a hike.

 

[Tallguy88]

You know what? Nevermind.

 

[OGM]

None of what you have brought up here is inapplicable to circumcision. It was instituted for reasons of controlling sex, from Maimonides to John Harvey Kellogg. There are a lot of other reasons why it is done, many of which are similar to the reasons people support FGM. Plenty of male circumcisions are done in anything but sterile conditions, but we're not arguing for sterile circumcision of both genders, are we?

In addition, even ritual nicking of the clitoral hood in sterile settings has been decried as genital mutilation.

So no, nothing here distinguishes FGM from circumcision.



You are still talking about having some kind of choice over the bodily integrity of your son in a way that simply is not tolerated when it comes to infant females.



Woman....vs parents of sons. Consistency would be nice indeed.



They all amount to nonsense in the end. Babies will not be having sex, and we can surely deal with UTIs better than chopping a body part off, this is like solving carpal tunnel by cutting people's hands off.

As for "my god told me too", that can take a hike.

Fortunately it is going more and more out of style. At least the insurance companies have seen the light and will refuse to pay for a non-medically mandated circumcision. Also in Europe many doctors will refuse a parents request for a non-needed circumcision.

 

[Tallguy88]

Fortunately it is going more and more out of style. At least the insurance companies have seen the light and will refuse to pay for a non-medically mandated circumcision. Also in Europe many doctors will refuse a parents request for a non-needed circumcision.

Circumcision is the norm in the South. It's just assumed that babies will be circumcised.

 

[Supreme]

Fortunately it is going more and more out of style. At least the insurance companies have seen the light and will refuse to pay for a non-medically mandated circumcision. Also in Europe many doctors will refuse a parents request for a non-needed circumcision.

I know here in the UK, there has been quite some controversy over circumcision, even proposals to ban it. But I think that's more out of a sense of anti-Semitism/Islamophobia than anything else, as Jews and Muslims are the only people get circumcised- virtually no one else has the procedure.

 

[OGM]

I know here in the UK, there has been quite some controversy over circumcision, even proposals to ban it. But I think that's more out of a sense of anti-Semitism/Islamophobia than anything else, as Jews and Muslims are the only people get circumcised- virtually no one else has the procedure.

If one looks at many other European countries, for example Norway and Sweden, you can see that it really has gone out of style. It was out of style a long time ago. It just was deemed medically unnecessary. A foreskin is part of a healthy male. Just as a clitoral hood is part of a healthy female.

Plus I know many doctors that will refuse to perform a circumcision unless it is medically necessary. Interestingly enough many European countries such as Norway and Sweden have very low HIV infection rates.

Circumcision is the norm in the South. It's just assumed that babies will be circumcised.

Even in the South rates have dropped since 1979. Many States dropped Medicaid funding for the procedure. Also many insurance companies got smart and decided to stop paying for medically unnecessary surgery. Years ago I had several large insurance companies as clients. I told them they could save millions by not covering circs. Fortunately many of them will only cover a medically needed circ. When people have to pay out-of-pocket suddenly the procedure becomes "optional".