Multiculturalism

Yes.I realise you're just in this thread to be an arsehole, but at least pretend to read the stuff you ask for and are then given. It's called female genital mutilation for a reason.

How?Have you thought about this at all? There has to be a point at which a blade in the vicinity of the female genitals is less "mutilation" than male circumcision. If the law is going to treat males and females equally, you can't prohibit something in females while allowing something more severe in males.Please try to actually discuss the topic instead of providing nothing but, "Nuh uh."

Irrelevant, the law applies to females only. The law does not treat male and female genitalia equally because male and female genitalia are not the same. The law can and does discriminate in this matter.I have also answered your tediously repeated question about whether it *should*. My opinion is that male circumcision, if it was an offence, would be a much lessor one because the harm is trivial in comparison, does not create a permanent disability and the intent is not malign.I'm also not totally convinced male circumcision would be a legal act if introduced today, but we live with these minor inconsistencies.

That's exactly what makes it relevant. How can a sexist law stand? Irrelevant. Many things about males and females are different but that doesn't excuse different treatment. By your logic, we might as well use the fact that men's and women's brains are 'wired' differently to bar women from jobs that (supposedly) require one type of wiring. That kind of thinking is what we've been trying to get away from for more than a century. But you keep equivocating the worst form of FGM with ANY alteration of the female genitals. I keep asking you why one tiny nick would be "more harmful" than male circumcision and you either can't or won't give a cogent answer.

What low-down tactics?Calling torture, torture and calling butchery, butchery?It's quite obvious to any caring human being.Have you seen the videos, ringo?

Words have meanings. You're twisting the meaning of "butchery" and "torture" for emotive value. I explained what they mean. Why do you persist in using your own made-up definitions?

For the simple reason that it is an anti-sexist law. It is designed to prevent harm to women. FGM discriminates against women in the worst possible way. Correct and that is exactly what this law does - it protects women from being subjugated and harmed by men. That's why the first world is universally supportive of it, including every feminist anti-discriminatory campaign organisation you can name.(It's also why you find yourself on your own on the wrong side of the argument.)I now await your anti-discriminatory campaign to prevent the circumcision of young boys. Which I would consider supporting.

Your analogy is idiotic. But then you are pretty good at making broken analogies aren't you?When we say that children cannot consent, we mean that at their current level of maturity, they cannot make an informed decision. But we expect them to grow out of that situation, which leaves open the possibility that they can express a relative consent if their parents do not operate to deprive them of such.Since it is perfectly possible to hold off on FGM until children reach an age of consent, then their consent is not irrelevant.On the other hand, pigs won't grow up to fly.I do not believe that you failed to understand the difference. At this point you appear to be deliberately dissembling. Your ridiculous line of argument would support doing things to a child that no one could doubt were abusive.Sorry but there is still no right to march your children into an oven.

Which has not happened.There is no right to murder your child. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Have you seen the videos, ringo?

Many of the women disagree with you. If anybody else wants to pile on, they're certainly welcome to. I'll say again... I do not support FGM. But since this is a debate forum, every position needs to have a counter-position. My opposition OUGHT to strengthen your argument but all you seem to have is evasion. I suspect you would, which is why I keep asking where you draw the line. I'm looking in the opposite direction, removing restrictions rather than adding more. If you're willing to eradicate male circumcision, what next?

According to your cronies, I'm also stupid and a terrible person. Well, you're bad at understanding analogies, aren't you, Mr. Literal? Of course. The same applies to ANY situation in which a parent makes a decision for a child. And in the case of FGM, many of the children do grow up to support it. That's where you and the rest of the hysteria-mongers in this thread go wrong. You don't get to force your idea of "abuse" on everybody. If they don't think it's abuse, it ain't.

There is if the powers that be grant you that right. It may not "be" right to kill your child but a government can certainly give you the right to do it.

Have you ever heard of childbirth? I'm told it can be quite painful.Pain does not equate to either "torture" or "butchery". Please stop equivocating. It's dishonest.

So what - paedophiles also disagree that they harm children; oddly enough society insists they stop anyway. Then now would be a good time to stop actually supporting it. And I keep saying I'm not interested in drawing your damn silly line. My line is to protect the children from those that would do them harm with FGM in my country.I'm all out of troll food for a while.