DSenette wrote:so, you know, it's a REALLY drastic version of male circumcision.
As pointed out, there are different types of FGM. The mildest of which has a distinctly negative impact on sexual function, the worst of which has a significantly worse negative impact on sexual function. Female circumcision and male circumcision are NOT equivalents for the purposes of this discussion. They are equivalents in terms of 'procedures done to genitalia', which is to say having a tumor removed from your brain is the same as having your appendix removed, because 'both involve the removal of tissue'.
Williks wrote:You don't see the difference between enrolling your child in sports which has a myriad of positive benefits (physical fitness, improving social skills, making friends, etc) which might also result in injury, and specifically sending your child to a physician who will cut a piece of him off with no real positive effects?
Of course I do, but I also see the similarity in which neither of them represent a choice on the part of the child. In short, there are things that parents are able to force their children to do, and as long as the child is not harmed in the long term, I think parents should be allowed to continue doing them.
Williks wrote:But you haven't offered any counter to the argument. You've simply stated there aren't any conclusive long-term negative effects.
This is where I think a disconnect is occurring for me in this debate; I'm claiming that circumcision has no negative effects, and people are claiming that circumcision is a negative effect. I'm claiming that things with no negative effects are acceptable, and people are claiming that circumcision is a negative effect.
Williks wrote:But I also feel that the age at which most kids get braces, they've enough mental capacity to be given the option themselves.
Yeah, I'd be curious to see how many children with braces made that decision for themselves.
gmalivuk wrote:(Re:Pierced ears)No, it isn't. There've been numerous people in this very thread who've already said so, but apparently you either keep missing that or ignoring it.
I've definitely missed it, but I'll go through and look for it. I feel that piercing a child's ear is perfectly reasonable; it represents minimal pain, is more or less reversible, and doesn't have any negative effects.
gmalivuk wrote:So if I decide to waterboard you but then ensure that you won't (consciously) remember it later, it becomes totes okay?
A curious point, I'll have to think about. My gut reaction is to say no, obviously, but I think part of that has to do with the notion that it would be something you repeatedly do to me, under the guise of memory wiping me after...
Honestly, I'd say that the process of circumcision in a religious context has a purpose, a meaning, whereas randomly waterboarding me doesn't. Circumcision leaves a mark that serves as the covenant between God and Abraham, and within the/various faith/s, whereas waterboarding me and memory wiping me, in this context, is just something you're drawing a parallel to for the purposes of inflicting pain and having me forget (which is akin the procedure of circumcision), but is devoid of purpose, of meaning.
That said, the 'purpose or meaning' argument isn't one I personally care about; in an ideal world, there would be no social taboo for circumcision (none of this 'it looks more normal' or such), and parents could decide whether or not to circumcise their boys as objectively as possible, and only those who felt it was part of their culture or religion would bother. Which is, I suppose, how we got into this debate in the first place.
How many are the enemy, but where are they? Within, without, never ceases the fight.