 |
| http://www.drmomma.org/2009/09/history-of-female-circumcision-in.html |
I recently got in a rather heated discussion with a nurse.
The argument, after I compared female and male circumcision, declined to this:
"A direct comparison was made between male circumcision and female genital mutilation. The two acts were conflated. Female mutilation is a purposeless and barbaric act performed by evil men who comit this atrocity to keep women as second-class citizens.
The only conclusion that can be drawn when a direct relationship is made between female mutilation and male circumcision is that they are equally atrocious.
And if the two acts are the same (remember, they were directly compared), someone who sees a benefit to male circumcision is by definition just as evil as someone who supports female genital mutilation. If female mutilation and male circumcision are truly exactly the same, then anyone who favors either act must be an equally repugnant person." - Nursing Student
Obviously, she is horrified at the idea of female circumcision but very much in favor of male circumcision.
Which leads me to this post. I'll make it short and sweet...
Which child's parents would be considered barbaric by the majority of the population if they circumcised the child? Which child's parents would be offered the option before leaving the hospital because it is culturally accepted?
Which child's parents have a right to decide if they should have a healthy part of their body excised? Which child's body is less deserving of their natural state?
Which child's genitalia is more likely to be permanently altered because of religion, cultural acceptance, aesthetic appearance, or 'health reasons'?
You and I both know the answers to these questions. I would encourage you to take a look at the chart that I created below. Feel free to share at will, just give a link back or reference me as a source.
It is amazing what we can justify when it fits our personal paradigms and wants/desires.
3 thoughts:
I am sorry but you are an ignorant. Please do some more research before write something which appears intelligent. Your work is biased and you are writing about something which you may not have experienced, so you don’t know what it is about.
This is the problem for all human being. we try to impose our thoughts on others or we copy others. Male circumcision has some benefit but female circumcision does NOT and it is a cruel practice. I think it started by females as competition since women like to do whatever men do.
I am sure you are writing from a country where almost all girls under 15 is sexually experienced and have some form of STDs which you can not prevent but sure you can stick your dirty nose on other countries business.
Hi Anon! Nice hiding ;-)
Also, btw, nice pot-shot, "sticking your dirty nose on other countries business"... that's very kind and 'unbiased' of you.
actually, all of the information that I wrote is backed by medical and historical research. I linked all of that information and sites where you can get more information ON it if you are interested in researching it more.
This post appears intelligent because it IS. :) You have failed to give ANY information or research to back your claim, but I welcome it so we can have an intellectual and adult-like debate (with no name calling or pot shots, please).
You said 'I think it started by females as competition since women like to do whatever men do.'... interesting idea/concept, but wrong. Female circ is just as old a practice as male circ and was never started by women... it was established by men to do it TO women.
Again, I welcome a healthy debate, but give some facts, not just your opinion of me and my post. :)
All humans have the inalienable right to be secure in their own bodies. Their gender, race and nationality is inconsequential to this right as is their parent's religion and culture.
Post a Comment