Law banning female genital mutilation ruled unconstitutional; Michigan doctors cleared of charges


#21

BS. The PURPOSE of female genital circumcision is to ASSURE that women cannot receive sexual pleasure and therefore are there for a single purpose…procreation with their husband. Removing the sensitive clitoris takes away a woman’s ability to be stimulated during sex. It’s much the same effect as removing the entire head of a male’s penis. Without the head of a HUMAN male penis, erections aren’t possible for the purpose of sex. Removing the clitoris is the ONLY way to assure that women cannot be sexually aroused. Oh, I’ll admit that a few women are aroused sexually by penile PENETRATION, but VERY few can achieve orgasm that way if they have no clitoris.

Circumcision of males today is practiced because the medical community consider it a HYGIENE issue more than anything else. I once had a neighbor who almost LOST his penis due to an infection that develop inside of his uncircumcised foreskin.


#22

You didn’t look it up. Go look at it.

Dawoodi Bohra. Look them up. Go look at the court case itself even. Go. Or quit pretending that you’re paying attention. Right now it’s too obvious that you’re not.

Here’s one more detail you may have overlooked; this sect is Shia.


#23

That is exactly what I was referring to. Horrible, just horrible. You just can’t compare this with male circumcision. Thanks for the link, Qix!


#24

That article left an indelible impression, C.T.


#25

I’d have to disagree, botching circumcision does the male no favors, and it happens all the time. Orthodox Jewish practice of oral suction on the blood has been known to contaminate the baby with herpes, infections that cause brain damage, and even death.

Equally, everything that’s a “positive” about male circumcision can be equally applied to removing the vulva. It’s even more infection-prone. People who do it in the 3rd world, argue for it for just that reason, along with “aesthetics”.


#26

I would bet my next SS check that you didn’t bother reading Qix’s article all the way through if even at all.


#27

You’d lose that bet.

I’m willing to bet you treat Female circumcision as all being the same thing, when it’s not. Different cultures do different things.

The article isn’t relevant to what happened in Michigan. The most minimal version is not “removing the clitoris hood”, what the Dawoodi Bohra do is even less.

Something those here would know, if they read the court decision details.

And CT? If you think male circumcision is practiced any better in the 3rd word, you’d be dead wrong. Rusty razor blades are pretty common all-around. So are urinary tract infections, and kids being turned into eunuchs.


#28

Sigh AS, I think you argue just for the sake of arguing.


#29

AS doesn’t understand the REALITY of FGM. It should be outlawed world-wide, but ESPECIALLY in the U.S. and THAT’S reality.


#30

Both practices are wrong, and you’re overlooking what has actually happened in Michigan.

That’s what I’m saying.


#31

You don’t understand what happened in Michigan, because you didn’t look into it.

Prove me wrong.


#32

I’m not overlooking anything, AS. It is you who are overlooking the BIG picture of FGM vs. male circumcision. If these sand mongrels want to mutilate their female children and women, send them back to their sand dunes and let them do whatever they want! You’re trying to group apples and oranges, but it’s impossible!


#33

It REALLY doesn’t matter what “happened in Michigan.” ANY genital mutilation of young girls is WRONG and should be outlawed. If you permit ANY of it, we know that Islamists are the world champions of “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile!”


#34

They’re both deplorable. There is no functional usage for them. That’s why Pediatric associations around the world stand against it.

There is no case against FGM, that doesn’t equally apply to male circumcision. It’s functionally useless cutting of healthy tissue, that puts babies into shock, and needlessly puts them at risk for all sorts of disorders.

Any story of shocking disregard of proper medical etiquette in the 3rd world, also applies to the boys there.

Hunted down, and forced into it?

Oh yeah, dat **** happens, right in the street:

Barbarism is, as barbarism does.


#35

Frankly, I don’t CARE how the 3rd World practices male circumcision. Quite obviously, it has had little or no effect on their birthrates. What I DO care about is how it’s done in the U.S. and that is PRIMARILY for hygienic purposes…not religious. Excessive foreskin can (and does) cause problems for some men. Boys are human beings and they do make mistakes in cleaning themselves up. That’s why lots of them are sent back to the bathroom to wash behind their ears or to wash the BACKS of their hands after Mom’s inspections. My mother’s favorite comment was, “You could grow potatoes behind your ears. Go back and wash again!” It stands to reason that they’d be just as cavalier about washing under their foreskins, which can cause SERIOUS problems since urine contains LOTS of bacteria. Removing most of the foreskin makes it easier to keep one’s penis clean.


#36

You just brought home my point. If they want to mutilate their young girls then let them do so in their own hobbles. If American parents want to not circumcise their male babies, that is an option. Again, there is no way you are going to convince me that what islamobobs do to their female children is anyway whatsoever similar to what happens to American male boys. No way, AS. Sorry.


#37

I can’t believe we’re discussing penis hygiene. :vb-eek:


#38

Islam is completely antithetical to our culture, values and morays. FGM is nothing more than a practice among many Muslims that conditions girls to the cultural precept of male superiority and male dominance. Women can’t drive a car, can’t go out in public unveiled, FGM, etc., are all extensions of the view of many Muslims that women are to serve men and be subservient to them.

I see that some of you “intellectuals” compare male circumcision to FGM. Allow me to explain to you that male circumcision is entirely different on two grounds. First, it serves a primary hygienic function. Second, it does NOT reduce the sexual pleasure of intercourse. On the other hand, FGM serves no hygienic purpose whatsoever and DOES blunt a female’s erotic pleasure - and that is the purpose - thus mutilated, the woman is deemed less likely to stray from her husband; being essentially reserved for his pleasure.

FGM is nothing less than one of the cruelest forms of child abuse.

What’s next for our judiciary - allowing the murder of one’s daughter by her father in order for him to save face? - yet another practice among more radical followers of Sharia Law.


#39

You can’t defend it, so it is similar.

Cutting healthy tissue, putting children at risk for a whole stack of infections and disorders, for no. good. reason.

This is cultural furniture you don’t bother to question, because you never took an interest in it. You’re no better than the islamobob parents you accuse.

As these two say, it’s B.S.


#40

Mike, you’re not an expert. You can’t explain anything, you don’t know. Quit being the “intellectual” you accuse others of.

FGM is the same way, especially if it’s the vulva, which is more infection prone than foreskin.

The necessity is also discountable for the same reason male circumcision is; antibiotics and clean habits fixes the issue, without cutting healthy tissue.

Yes it does, you’ve cut off 1/3 of a man’s erogenous zone, which is why ramming during sex became fashionable.

Men are fighting for arousal in a way they hadn’t been before this became widespread.

This was your error Mike; not causing a Lack of arousal, says nothing of disrupting arousal, which male circumcision does. You’ve overlooked this, when it’s valid to the subject matter.