[Wren]

Originally Posted by Jarem Asyder To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It isn't really fair to compare circumcision with abortion in anyway, other than that they both evoke strong opinions in the religious. I don't agree with forced mutilation of someone against their will at all. It's the same reason that you aren't allowed to tattoo or pierce your baby. Male circumcision being a hygienic issue is completely ridiculous. If one doesn't clean their teeth, they'll fall out, but we don't forcibly remove teeth because they may get dirty and fall out. Yes wisdom teeth can be removed but that is done with the consent of the person having the teeth removed. I'm sure if you made it so that MGM and FGM were not done until the victim had a say in it, most people would absolutely refuse to allow that. The faster the practice stops for both men and women, the better off we'll all be. I'm sure it would help if we didn't live in a society that was so two-faced about sex and sexuality.

Where do you live that people aren't allowed to pierce the ears of babies?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Basically every single baby girl I see has pierced ears. Why is this allowed? It's so gross how children are treated as property. What gives parents/adults the right to "modify" another person's body? How children are viewed is so last century...

[Jarem Asyder]

When I lived in Kansas City there was an article about a local parlor that got in trouble because they were letting parents do that to their kids. I don't know if it is or was actually illegal but there was a pretty big backlash towards it. '

But it's things like these practices that make tests to determine if you'd be a good parent seem like a grand idea. Children cannot properly consent to things like this and it should be considered abuse to do so. The religious exclusion crap just pisses me off more since it is grounded in complete irrational superstition.

[Quett]

Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Many... or most... of the most vocal anti-abortionists out there are women. The continuance of the traditions of Female Genital Mutilation are entirely enforced by older females who were cut (men are not allowed). These views, which refuse girls and women ownership of their corporeal selves, promulgated by those who have been forcibly indoctrinated in same, seem related to me. One is a girl too young to understand being cut; the other is a woman old enough to make a decision being stymied. It makes me sad. [HIDE="Disturbing frst-hand account of FGM at 5 years old"] To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Brought up in a Muslim community in Senegal, Salimata Badji-Knight was circumcised when she was five. She now lives in London and works as an advocate for Forward in the UK. "When it happened I was five, and I didn't even know this practice existed. I was taken off with my cousins and other girls that I knew – we thought that we were going to a party. I was reassured because so many people I knew were there. Then the atmosphere changed, and the adult women became more aggressive. They took one of the girls away, and I heard her scream – I was the 20th girl to be taken, so I heard that scream over and over again. I heard them saying 'No, don't cut me', but I didn't know what they were cutting. "Then it was my turn. I didn't know what was happening, but it hurt so much I thought that I was going to die. They must have used a knife but I couldn't see it. It felt like having all of your nails ripped off at the same moment. There was no anaesthetic. Physically, it took a long time for me to heal. Every day when I have a shower I am reminded of the fact that I have been mutilated. "We need to stop this practice; it is terrorising people for life. I visited my father and explained what had been done to me. He cried and vowed that no other girls in the family would have this happen to them. "For a long time, I didn't want to talk about what happened to me, but if it will help one person to put down the knife, I'm happy to tell my story." [/HIDE] What do you think?

The Pro-life stance has about as much to do with controlling women as the Pro-choice stance has to do with hating babies. The Pro-life argument is founded on the idea that the thing which is aborted should be considered a human being, and thus cannot be justly killed for the sake of convenience, in the same way that your next door neighbor cannot be killed for the sake of convenience. The Pro-choice stance rests on the idea that the aborted thing should not be considered human, and thus killing it for the sake of the mother is justified.

These are the only reasonable ways to understand these arguments, whether or not the supporters of them actually know it. Some people might hold both Pro-life and Pro-FGM views for whatever reasons, but lumping Pro-life and Pro-FGM together doesn't work.

Comparing Pro-lifers to FGM supporters is absurd, and sounds more like Ad-hominem than a real assertion.

[Wren]

Another thought....

I don't think pro-FGM women are at all about controlling women (consciously or subconsciously). I think the same psychology is going on in men who want to circumcise their sons. You can tell them it's wrong, give them facts, show videos, etc but they still want jr to be done. It might be out of denial. Who wants to acknowledge that their parents would harm them? That there might be something wrong with their genitals? That part of them is missing? That maybe they don't have their full sexual function? Why, exactly, do men want their sons' penises to look like theirs? Do adults circumcise so they can feel better about themselves? In fact, I know a handful of men who refuse to watch videos of the procedure because it might change their mind. Why do they want it done that badly?

Then there's simply the cultural aspect. They want their daughters to go through the same "milestones". Bonding perhaps? My ex is a Muslim from Bangladesh and he was circumcised at 5. He mentioned that the boys bond with each other and the older men because they're all going through, or went through, the same pain.

If anyone's interested, this Indonesian woman blogged about her 3 month old girl being circumcised. She's so happy about it she took a picture of skin that was cut off.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Hatsumomo1]

Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Many... or most... of the most vocal anti-abortionists out there are women. The continuance of the traditions of Female Genital Mutilation are entirely enforced by older females who were cut (men are not allowed). These views, which refuse girls and women ownership of their corporeal selves, promulgated by those who have been forcibly indoctrinated in same, seem related to me. One is a girl too young to understand being cut; the other is a woman old enough to make a decision being stymied. It makes me sad. [HIDE="Disturbing frst-hand account of FGM at 5 years old"] To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Brought up in a Muslim community in Senegal, Salimata Badji-Knight was circumcised when she was five. She now lives in London and works as an advocate for Forward in the UK. "When it happened I was five, and I didn't even know this practice existed. I was taken off with my cousins and other girls that I knew – we thought that we were going to a party. I was reassured because so many people I knew were there. Then the atmosphere changed, and the adult women became more aggressive. They took one of the girls away, and I heard her scream – I was the 20th girl to be taken, so I heard that scream over and over again. I heard them saying 'No, don't cut me', but I didn't know what they were cutting. "Then it was my turn. I didn't know what was happening, but it hurt so much I thought that I was going to die. They must have used a knife but I couldn't see it. It felt like having all of your nails ripped off at the same moment. There was no anaesthetic. Physically, it took a long time for me to heal. Every day when I have a shower I am reminded of the fact that I have been mutilated. "We need to stop this practice; it is terrorising people for life. I visited my father and explained what had been done to me. He cried and vowed that no other girls in the family would have this happen to them. "For a long time, I didn't want to talk about what happened to me, but if it will help one person to put down the knife, I'm happy to tell my story." [/HIDE] What do you think?

What makes me sad is your attempt to compare pro-lifers to those in favor of mutilating young girls in order to try and get your opinion across. You're pro-choice. I get it. But maybe you should try to accurately portray both sides of the issue first instead of trying to compare apples to oranges. Pro-life is no more anti-women than pro-choice is anti-kids. The pro-life issue stands on the unborn child's right to life (or in a sense, autonomy over his/her own body), not taking away a woman's autonomy for the hell of it.

As for FGC, here's a list from
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
that might enlighten you:

* Where FGM is a social convention, the social pressure to conform to what others do and have been doing is a strong motivation to perpetuate the practice. * FGM is often considered a necessary part of raising a girl properly, and a way to prepare her for adulthood and marriage. * FGM is often motivated by beliefs about what is considered proper sexual behaviour, linking procedures to premarital virginity and marital fidelity. FGM is in many communities believed to reduce a woman's libido, and thereby is further believed to help her resist "illicit" sexual acts. When a vaginal opening is covered or narrowed (type 3 above), the fear of pain of opening it, and the fear that this will be found out, is expected to further discourage "illicit" sexual intercourse among women with this type of FGM. * FGM is associated with cultural ideals of femininity and modesty, which include the notion that girls are “clean” and "beautiful" after removal of body parts that are considered "male" or "unclean". * Though no religious scripts prescribe the practice, practitioners often believe the practice has religious support. * Religious leaders take varying positions with regard to FGM: some promote it, some consider it irrelevant to religion, and others contribute to its elimination. * Local structures of power and authority, such as community leaders, religious leaders, circumcisers, and even some medical personnel can contribute to upholding the practice. * In most societies, FGM is considered a cultural tradition, which is often used as an argument for its continuation. * In some societies, recent adoption of the practice is linked to copying the traditions of neighbouring groups. Sometimes it has started as part of a wider religious or traditional revival movement. * In some societies, FGM is being practised by new groups when they move into areas where the local population practice FGM.

[nanotube]

I see FGM and MGM as quite different in extent but fundamentally the same. The former is... truly shocking, disgusting and makes me more angry to think about, but I strongly oppose both. But for the sake of enlightening argument ... What makes a parent taking a child for circumcision different than one taking a child in for a vaccination? In both cases the child may be coerced or forced, in both cases there's an outside authority recommending the procedure, in both cases the procedure may be socially accepted (in some places), in both cases society believes there are long-term benefits that outweigh shorter-term pain. What's the fundamental difference? Is it just the magnitude? The nature of the authority figures? Is there a fundamental difference?

Back to the original post, first the premise that there are many strongly pro-life women: if the data is from here (
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
) then I think it's more accurate to say that in general, 52% of women have strong opinions on the issue vs 41% of men, rather than imply women are more pro-life than men. Second, the idea that women support and defend a ideology that's not in their best interest, the claims is something like 'Stockholm Syndrome'. You could extend that to adult female opponents of the controversial burka ban proposals in Belgium and France too. The commonality is that these women are convinced by an enduring ideology that a certain practice, which we view as negative, improves their lives. In all three cases, the observer, you, think you know what is best for these women better than they do. You view them, to put it tactlessly, as brainwashed by religion or whatever ideology you don't share, and I'm with you. But then how do we distinguish reasonable disagreements from 'brainwashed' irrational beliefs?

[plotthickens]

Originally Posted by nanotube To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The commonality is that these women are convinced by an enduring ideology that a certain practice, which we view as negative, improves their lives. In all three cases, the observer, you, think you know what is best for these women better than they do. You view them, to put it tactlessly, as brainwashed by religion or whatever ideology you don't share, and I'm with you. But then how do we distinguish reasonable disagreements from 'brainwashed' irrational beliefs?

Outcomes, perhaps? The direct results of FGM are complicated childbirth, infection, sterility and death; the alternative is none of these complications. The outcomes of countries banning abortions is that more abortions are performed on citizens of those countries. The direct result of MGM is lessened sensation, decreased sexual pleasure, pain, and sometimes physical disfunction.

If we cannot use one kind of morality or personal judgement to choose, perhaps we can choose policies that lead to good outcomes?

[Lightman]

This is a completely and utterly ridiculous comparison, and I say that as someone who is not opposed to most cases of abortion (though I think that abortion after brain activity has been detected is abominable, except in cases where the mother's life is in danger). The anti-abortion argument isn't really religious: people might come to it through religion, but there are most certainly atheistic anti-abortionists, just as there are religious pro-abortion on demand types. The idea behind anti-abortionism is that something is being killed (which is objectively true - something is being killed, whether it be a bunch of cells or a fetus), which makes abortion the willful taking of a human life. While I don't agree with them in most cases, comparing anti-abortionists to pro-FGMers is ludicrous; FGM has no conceivable useful function; being opposed to abortion hypothetically could be saving a life.

[Mader]

I don't know a lot about the female mutilation.
I know it happens, and I understand that it has to do with social traditions and the desire to keep the girls "pure".
How mutilating a girl keeps her "pure" I don't get.

I am so sorry that you went thru this (and still are living with this). Yes, barbaric and cruel.

I agree that mutilation is partially about controlling the behavior of the young girls, but frankly, I believe that the pro-choice position is also about controlling behavior of girls.

Man and woman have sex. Woman gets pregnant. Man doesn't want baby. Woman feels she cannot care for a child all by herself. Woman hopes that man will "step up" and be supportive, be a father. Man doesn't want baby, or man doesn't want baby with this woman. Man does the "you have the right to choose" line, using the tone of voice that says 'please choose abortion, I don't want to have a baby with you'. Woman feels alone, helpless, vulnerable. Abortion. Yes, sometimes things are different, but talk with a woman who had an abortion. Ask her if she has any regrets.

Pro-life is not simply a religious belief. It is a basic, humanizing thought. We are not animals, we are humans, made in the Image of God. We are valuable, each and every one of us. One human (Mom) is not more valuable than another (baby), each and every human is valuable, to be protected and cared for. When we lose that basic respect for human life, we lose all respect for human life. Why not shoot your neighbor? So what if you drive drunk and risk running someone over, it's not as if humans are anything special. And the ultimate, that a Mother has so little love and compassion, so little maternal instinct, that she doesn't mind ripping a baby out of her own body, not even the smallest, weakest, most vulnerable is protected.

What about choice? You make a choice when you sleep together. You make a choice when you don't use a condom. You make a choice when you 'forget' to take your birth control pill. With abortion we get all the fun of sex without the undesirable consequences. You got drunk and didn't mean to have sex... well, grow up and don't get drunk. Try a little self-control. It is socially responsible to hand over the keys to the car when you have been drinking, but it is OK to have drunk sex and get pregnant and then have an abortion? Any time we remove consequences from our actions, we become self-destructive. Is your personal right to party, or go to school, more important than the life of another human being? Like it or not, that is a human baby in there, and you are killing that baby for convenience. Sure life will be tough, but a human life is worth it; a human life is more important than a job or school or personal freedom.

[Jarem Asyder]

Originally Posted by Mader To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't know a lot about the female mutilation. I know it happens, and I understand that it has to do with social traditions and the desire to keep the girls "pure". How mutilating a girl keeps her "pure" I don't get. I am so sorry that you went thru this (and still are living with this). Yes, barbaric and cruel. I agree that mutilation is partially about controlling the behavior of the young girls, but frankly, I believe that the pro-choice position is also about controlling behavior of girls. Man and woman have sex. Woman gets pregnant. Man doesn't want baby. Woman feels she cannot care for a child all by herself. Woman hopes that man will "step up" and be supportive, be a father. Man doesn't want baby, or man doesn't want baby with this woman. Man does the "you have the right to choose" line, using the tone of voice that says 'please choose abortion, I don't want to have a baby with you'. Woman feels alone, helpless, vulnerable. Abortion. Yes, sometimes things are different, but talk with a woman who had an abortion. Ask her if she has any regrets. Pro-life is not simply a religious belief. It is a basic, humanizing thought. We are not animals, we are humans, made in the Image of God. We are valuable, each and every one of us. One human (Mom) is not more valuable than another (baby), each and every human is valuable, to be protected and cared for. When we lose that basic respect for human life, we lose all respect for human life. Why not shoot your neighbor? So what if you drive drunk and risk running someone over, it's not as if humans are anything special. And the ultimate, that a Mother has so little love and compassion, so little maternal instinct, that she doesn't mind ripping a baby out of her own body, not even the smallest, weakest, most vulnerable is protected. What about choice? You make a choice when you sleep together. You make a choice when you don't use a condom. You make a choice when you 'forget' to take your birth control pill. With abortion we get all the fun of sex without the undesirable consequences. You got drunk and didn't mean to have sex... well, grow up and don't get drunk. Try a little self-control. It is socially responsible to hand over the keys to the car when you have been drinking, but it is OK to have drunk sex and get pregnant and then have an abortion? Any time we remove consequences from our actions, we become self-destructive. Is your personal right to party, or go to school, more important than the life of another human being? Like it or not, that is a human baby in there, and you are killing that baby for convenience. Sure life will be tough, but a human life is worth it; a human life is more important than a job or school or personal freedom.

An embryo has fewer cells than the brain of a flea. If getting rid of it is killing a human life then you are a mass murderer every time you clip your toenails.

Regardless, I believe the connection the op is making is the issue of personal choice. A woman should have complete and total control over her body. Children who are put through this mutilation are deprived of control of their own body just as a woman who is not allowed to decide what to do with her pregnancy would be denied a choice.

The practice (and the prohibition of the other practice) are also both rooted in religions that endorse controls over a woman's life and treat her as a form of property.

	Is your personal right to party, or go to school, more important than the life of another human being?

Are the consequences of a rape a woman's responsibility? You show your own shortsightedness if you think most abortions are the result of a woman feeling overburdened with the pressures of parenthood.

[InfiniteLoop]

I cannot understand why anyone would force women into getting the only part of their genitals (not counting G-Spots) that feels anything. I see it as one more way of men trying to control women, and that's it.

As for abortion, I am very much pro-choice. Women should *have* the choice, it's their body. I don't honestly know if for me, if the choice ever came up, that I would really do it, but that doesn't mean I don't want the choice. That doesn't mean, though, that abortion is anti-woman. Wrong because it removes a choice, but not anti-women. FGM *is* in my opinion very wrong, because it's happening to *children* who *cannot say no*, and anti-woman simply because it is *forced* removal of a part of the body simply because the men who made the rules don't want the women to 'feel' and thus be 'husseys' who 'hunt' men for their own 'twisted pleasure'. Religious belief or not, it's *wrong* to take something from someone, and just as wrong to take a part of the body from someone.