Fgm

[~Beauty_from_Pain~]

FGM, or female genital mutilation is practiced in many countries. Do you believe that we should tell them that what they believe/do is wrong? Should we try and change their culture just because we think that it is wrong? Why or why not?

 

[Mandrake]

By this, do you mean the non-consensual disfigurement of a woman or girl's genitals?

If so, then yes, I think that one ought to change the fact that they're assaulting other human beings. Irrespective of what you believe, your right to impose it on anyone else ends at your fingertips.

At the same time, some laws brought into place to combat this practice infringe upon a woman's ability to choose what she wants to do with her genitals, and may prohibit consensual activities such as genital piercings. I think that this is wrong too.

 

[Doubledb]

I picked OTHEr because i dont really know. on the one hand we shouldnt judge other cultures by our own standards - Jewish men are circumsized (sp?) - is this immoral and wrong? I dont like the idea of it happening to me - but its not me so do i have a right to try to change it?

On the other hand many times (1)it is forced, which is wrong cause it should be a choice and (2) If the choose not too they might be completly excluded from thier culture - i think this is wrong. i think that people who choose to change themslves should maybe be respected (like the Nazarites in the old Testament) but i dont think people should be judged or condemned for not complying.

i really just dont know - its a hard issue
-Daniel

 

[AceHero]

FGM is awful, and I don't want to go out on a tangent here, but I consider male circumcision to be almost equally bad (but not quite) and don't understand why so many people go along with it as if it's normal.

 

[Mandrake]

FGM is awful, and I don't want to go out on a tangent here, but I consider male circumcision to be almost equally bad (but not quite) and don't understand why so many people go along with it as if it's normal.

I actually agree with you completely, and would call it equally immoral and unacceptable. If you want to lop off your own foreskin, then go for it and more power to you, but keep your knives off of everyone elses.

 

[Doubledb]

I actually agree with you completely, and would call it equally immoral and unacceptable. If you want to lop off your own foreskin, then go for it and more power to you, but keep your knives off of everyone elses.

lol, im not jewish... i dont like it but how can you judge a culture you dont really know? thats all i am saying.

Thats whay i said I DONT KNOW - its a HARD ISSUE. Its always easy to judge it from the outside.

sometimes i heard this is done to females so they cannot feed their children - this is used to kill the children and / or GENOCIDE a culture by starting with its children -this obviously is WRONG and EVIL. however, i believe ive heard stories where this is ritualistic.. that is where i am not sure.

-Doubledb

 

[oneshot012]

I choose other. What I would do is learn the language learn the culure seeing how i think one website said like 85% of it is done in Africa then I would preach the gospel translate the NT into there lanuage and let them see for themselves that it is wrong. Furthermore I am sure that once they get saved the conviction of the Holy Spirit would be so strong and with intercessory prays it would all stop because it is demonic. Then all the girls who had it done I would pray for there complete healing and resotoration and watch the power of God move and completely resotre them.

So I would bring the Kingdom because that is the only answer that they need

 

[Mandrake]

What I'm suggesting is that it's just not ethical to perform a religious ritual on anyone without their consent, especially if it damages the participant for life. What if, instead of the foreskin, it was a hand. Every infant born to a religious sect has to have their right hand amputated as an act of faith. There's no way that it would be permitted. If, as an informed and consenting adult, you want to amputate a hand, then I have no problem with it, but the second that you try to do it to someone who can't give or hasn't given that consent, you've crossed the line.

 

[Doubledb]

I choose other. What I would do is learn the language learn the culure seeing how i think one website said like 85% of it is done in Africa then I would preach the gospel translate the NT into there lanuage and let them see for themselves that it is wrong. Furthermore I am sure that once they get saved the conviction of the Holy Spirit would be so strong and with intercessory prays it would all stop because it is demonic. Then all the girls who had it done I would pray for there complete healing and resotoration and watch the power of God move and completely resotre them.

So I would bring the Kingdom because that is the only answer that they need

Im curious what scriptures you would use??? would you exculde the ones that refer to the jews and circumcision (sp?) - i know for sure it speaks of that in Acts. And is this different from what the Jews do or similar??? Is this "mutilation" a form of female cirumcision or just plain MUTILATION??? im kinda sking you and asking myself i suppose - this is an interesting issue.

 

[Doubledb]

What I'm suggesting is that it's just not ethical to perform a religious ritual on anyone without their consent, especially if it damages the participant for life. What if, instead of the foreskin, it was a hand. Every infant born to a religious sect has to have their right hand amputated as an act of faith. There's no way that it would be permitted. If, as an informed and consenting adult, you want to amputate a hand, then I have no problem with it, but the second that you try to do it to someone who can't give or hasn't given that consent, you've crossed the line.

I agree.. but its actually better to do it young.. i mean.. babies wont remember the pain - i remember like nothing before age 2 or 3 really.

I suppose you are against abortion too? i am... but i think this is different - abortion isnt a cultural thing so much as just a technilogical way to kill unwanted babies rather than putting them in dumpsters or on doorsteps.

 

[Grunt]

We [Americans] don't have much room to talk while our circumcision rate remains what it is.

The bottom line is that the same principle applies to both: you are practicing genital modification/mutilation on a young child or newborn infant without their consent.

I find both equally disgusting.

 

[Mandrake]

It's got nothing to do with pain. By that logic, rape using rohypnol would be fine because the victim wouldn't remember the event. The problem that I have is with the non-consensual nature of the surgery. Just because the child won't remember the circumcision doesn't mean that he won't miss the sensation in the head of his penis when it becomes desensitized, or even just dislike the aesthetic of his altered body. If he wants to change it later in life, then he can make that decision for himself.

I actually think that this doesn't relate to the abortion debate, which hinges on whether a newly conceived embryo is a person or not. A post-birth infant clearly is, so this is an issue of consent and not of personhood.

 

[AceHero]

I agree.. but its actually better to do it young.. i mean.. babies wont remember the pain - i remember like nothing before age 2 or 3 really.

Yeah, but babies can certainly feel pain. It's a dangerous procedure anyway. I'm sure you wouldn't want any male offspring of yours to go under the knife if you saw how the circumcision is performed. Some babies have even died from circumcision due to blood loss or infection, though the autopsies rarely mention the cause of it.

 

[Doubledb]

Yeah, but babies can certainly feel pain. It's a dangerous procedure anyway. I'm sure you wouldn't want any male offspring of yours to go under the knife if you saw how the circumcision is performed. Some babies have even died from circumcision due to blood loss or infection, though the autopsies rarely mention the cause of it.

good point - thats true.
i know i wouldnt want my kid going though it but then you have to question how God made the hebrews/Israelites/ Jews do it in the first place in the Old Testament through today???

Its just something to think about
-Doubledb

 

[oneshot012]

Im curious what scriptures you would use??? would you exculde the ones that refer to the jews and circumcision (sp?) - i know for sure it speaks of that in Acts. And is this different from what the Jews do or similar??? Is this "mutilation" a form of female cirumcision or just plain MUTILATION??? im kinda sking you and asking myself i suppose - this is an interesting issue.

Seriously right now I don't know what scuptures I would use off the top of my head. I really first just looked into the situation and was reading about what they were actually doing to these girls and it happens when they are like thirteen. They do a lot of horiffic things that I dare not talk about. I believe that they are really mutilating them it is not circumscion at all.

I don't know why we are circumcised for it was part of the covenant with Abraham and frankly from my understanding we are not under the Abrahamic Covenant but under the covenant of the blood of Jesus Christ. The New Covenant not with our blood but his. So therefore circumsion is no longer necessary but if you want to do it hey I haven't really spent much time on thinking about it or studying it in the Bible we never asked that question in Bible college most of us are still working out Christian living and good theology but that is why I like this website because it makes me think about everyones question's not just my own and that streches me.

Though Paul does talk about how are bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit and furthermore we are made in the image of God thus cutting and mutilating our bodies is not something that should be done whatsoever (1 Cor 3:16, 1 Cor 6:19-20, 2 Cor 6:16).

Bottome line the spirit of the Lord is the one who convicts and I would bring these scripture, the ones above, to them once they are converted through the power of God it would be Jesus who would change them for he would show them their sins through the Holy Spirit and teach them to walk in newness of life not after the ways of the flesh but after the Spirit and in his likeness.

 

[eyesofmystery]

I am against this barbaric practice. It brings no benefits and can cause serious health problems. I can cause infections, extreme menstrual pain, difficult childbirth, and even death.

It is also linked to extreme sexism because in the cultures that practice it, they say it keeps a woman "pure" by preventing her from cheating on her husband since she can't enjoy sex as a result of the surgery. It is chauvinistic to assume a woman will sleep around if she enjoys sex, and continuing the practice of FGM is not going to do anything to combat those ignorant attitudes.

 

[Sketcher]

I don't really see the parallels between this and circumcision, as with circumcision you're not losing anything that has a lot of nerves. FGM is more akin to cutting off part of the tip of the penis itself. Much more painful, and much more likely to be missed on Valentine's Day.

 

[eyesofmystery]

Actually, FGM would be the equivalent of cutting off most or even all the penis. Male circumcision (removing the foreskin) would be the equivalent of cutting off the clitoral hood on a woman (but not the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] itself, which is removed in FGM).

 

[Mandrake]

While I agree that anatomically it's not the same thing, I think that the consent issues are applicable. Additionally, saying that circumcision is not damaging to sexual function is just wrong. The foreskin is in place to protect the head of the penis from everyday contact with the environment because it has so many nerve endings that it can be painful. By removing the foreskin during infancy the head is subjected to contact that it wouldn't be otherwise, and becomes desensitized, leading to decreased sexual enjoyment.

 

[Grunt]

I don't really see the parallels between this and circumcision, as with circumcision you're not losing anything that has a lot of nerves. FGM is more akin to cutting off part of the tip of the penis itself. Much more painful, and much more likely to be missed on Valentine's Day.

Huh? The foreskin has plentiful nerve endings, particularly on the inner part. It's pretty darn sensitive - far from being "plain" skin. Not to mention its function of protecting the part which does have the highest concentration of nerves.