And no one will bother to ask feminists what they think of this:roll_eyes:
Wonder what the feminazis think about this.
I doubt they give a damn. The left (Feminazis) are all on board with Islam. Remember one of their strongest proponents once claimed to WANT to live in an Islamic country “where women have more rights.”
“Unconstitutional” based on what? “Overstepped bounds” doesn’t tell me much. Like, what “bounds” would that be?
And what’s this thing about the Commerce Clause (Article)?
Can somebody 'splain what seems like idiocy to me?
We have male genital mutilation all the time.
It’s just as pointless. Getting outraged at one but not the other is a cultural attitude.
The feminists were very upset about this issue years ago. This is practice that is employed to take the pleasure away from sex for these unfortunate women. It is a part of the control that Muslins assert over women. Now that it is part of “Muslin rights” movement, the “progressive feminists” will probably back off.
What these liberal fools don’t realize or refuse to acknowledge is that in many backward Muslin societies there is a dilemma for some Muslin men, “which is more important, my car or donkey, or my wife?” Since it’s easier to replace woman, the donkey is more important.
Seriously this is an example of where globalism is more important than previous “positions of principle” for these feminists.
There is a huge difference between the effects of male and female circucision.
That’s easy; it’s doubletalk bull dookie.
This is a BS comparison. Removing a girl’s clitoris is comparable to removing a man’s penis, not just the foreskin.
Nonsense, of course, AS. “Male genital mutilation” is NOT for the purpose of assuring that men cannot experience sexual pleasure (as FEMALE mutilation IS, BTW). It’s for hygienic reasons…solely. Oh, I’ll admit that circumcision (the male variety) once had some religious overtones, but the basic purpose even then was for hygiene! There IS no hygiene component to the practice of female genital mutilation. It is SOLELY for the purpose of removing the clitoris so women CANNOT experience sexual pleasure on the theory that that will insure their “faithfulness” to their husband.
Yes, it is the cultural attitude that civilized behavior is better than barbarism.
There are nerve endings in the foreskin you can’t grow back, and leave the penis desensitized. And yes, this was meant to discourage sex & masturbation.
And this BTW isn’t happening.
Part of their case to the Court is that what they do, termed “pricking”, is less invasive and more superficial than male circumcision.
NONSENSE. They remove the clitoris in this procedure. Otherwise, there is no POINT in what they’re doing. Good LORD! In Africa, the “procedure” is often done with a piece of broken GLASS! Are you REALLY this ignorant of what FGM actually is???
BTW, I can assure you that “removing all or part of the foreskin” in males has no appreciable effect on one’s ability to enjoy sex and does NOT “discourage sex & masturbation” in the slightest. A case can be made that years of abrasion against clothing of the male penis sans foreskin DOES to a degree “desensitize” it and that’s often given as a reason to oppose automatically performing it in infancy, but that was NEVER the reason for doing it to pubescent Jewish or Islamic males.
Yeah, show me that in the Bible…
Well, they better be careful. They may be walking around in burqas soon.
Circumcision in males cannot possibly be compared to the mutilation of females. Circumcision does not involve any kind of interruption in the pleasure of sex in males nor any other aspect of male genitalia. In addition, in order for a muslim woman to give birth after being mutilated, they have to have surgery to reverse it. Not sure if they can get pregnant without the surgery, though. It’s totally barbaric compared to circumcision.
Sometimes it involves much more than the clitoris. Sometimes, there is just a small opening left for urination.
Circumcision in males (in ancient times) was a sign that they belonged to the God of Abraham. It was (and still is to a certain degree) a religious practice. In WWII a circumcised male (such as Americans or other allied soldiers) could be arrested on suspicion of being a Jew. Today, most male Jews still get circumcised and many American male boys still do. If I had a baby boy, he would be circumcised.
No Dave, there are four general versions for what a female circumcision can be. You’re thinking of a different one than what these “Dawoodi Bohra” Muslims practice.
Look them up, and quit preaching.
Doesn’t matter; that was the goal of its promotion for use in America in the 19th century. Masturbation was thought to cause medical ills, so it was given a veil of “promoting health”. Just like drinking cocaine, or dousing yourself with iridium. Only this practice stuck around.
Today, America is the last place in the Western world where it isn’t outright derided by the resident Pediatric association.
That’s because the people sitting on our board include Orthodox Jewish doctors, who don’t want the practice marginalized. The board outright states that they don’t even have proof that circumcision isn’t a net harm, just “feelings”.