Date: August 08, 2019 08:32PM
Someone thought it was offensive to compare them. I don't know about *offensive,* but it is scientifically inaccurate -- for anyone who cares about science.
FGM is considered a violation of human rights. There are no benefits for the woman -- only harm -- sometimes grave, sometimes death. That is the opinion of the medical community and the legal community.
Circumcision -- the medical community supports it with caveats -- those mostly have to do with honoring the *parents* beliefs. The child is still without a say -- that is the nature of the decision. When he is an old man in a nursing home with continual UTIs, who knows -- he may curse his parents for not choosing to circumcise. The legal community is not challenging it as a violation of human rights.
Here is the British Medical Journal:
"Male circumcision is although largely unconsented genital surgery that carries potential health risks, female genital mutilation (FGM) has such a long list of acute and long term complications that, as Dr Clarke clearly states, brings FGM to a completely different status where risks and ethical considerations are concerned."
"Male circumcision is not comparable to female genital mutilation, although I agree that consideration should be given to banning male circumcision in childhood, and allowing for adults to make a fully informed decision as to whether they want the procedure or not."
The original letter to BMJ argued that as circumcision is legal, so FMG should be, too.https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/03/male-circumcision-not-comparable-female-genital-mutilation
So -- no -- I can't say that objecting to comparing them is somehow provincial or religiously motivated. Doctors don't compare them. Lawyers don't.
There are plenty of sources out there.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/mens-health/10998633/Dont-compare-male-circumcision-with-FGM.htmlhttps://www.wzzm13.com/article/news/local/verify/verify-female-genital-mutilation-versus-circumcision-whats-the-difference/434263995
"According to Female Genital Mutilation: A Practical Guide to Worldwide Laws and Policies, by the Center for Reproductive Laws and Policy, RAINBO -- the male equivalent of a clitoridectomy, one of the types of FGM/C, would be amputation of most of the penis. The male equivalent to narrowing the vaginal opening – which consists of repositioning the labia’s minora and majora, with or without clitoral removal – would be removing the entire penis, its roots of soft tissue and part of the scrotal skin."
That is a *significant* difference.
Also -- someone brought up anesthetic. Okay. They can and do use anesthetics, you know.http://www.childrenshospital.org/conditions-and-treatments/treatments/circumcision
"Whether or not you have your child circumcised is a deeply personal choice, and deciding if it’s right for your family will require consideration of many factors. In addition to personal, cultural and religious aspects associated with the decision, you may have medical questions as well.
"Circumcision can be done at any age. Traditionally, the most common time to do it is soon after your baby is born, or within the first month of life. Because the process is painful, a local anesthetic is used to numb the area and the surgery is performed while the baby is still awake."
I don't think anger at religions should cloud people's judgement of what is a medical (and personal and ethical) decision -- anymore than I think love of religions should cloud their judgement about, say, abortion.
We CAN turn to science, medicine, common sense, and ye olde golden rule, as well as other sources, for our opinions, you know.
If I had a son, I'd like to talk over the decision with his doctor. And I'd be PISSED if someone who was just angry at religions started yelling at me about the decision we reached -- whatever that decision was.
Pro-choice -- it's not just about abortion anymore, folk.