Human rights, cultural diversity, and moral relativity

Both references you cited earlier (in Message 15) made the point that FGM is intended to control a woman's sexuality.Why are you demanding evidence from Nator when you yourself provided the evidence in Message 15?From your response in Message 15: From your second cite (Prisoners of Ritual: Some Contemporary Developments in the History of Female Genital Mutilation): I would argue that, at best, the mothers/grandmothers/aunts are indifferent to the horrific consequences. That is completely beside the point.The fact remains: FGM is intended to control women.From your response in Message 15: I'd hardly call 1/2 of Africa "limited". In addition, in recent years, millions of Africans have migrated to Europe and North America, bringing their traditions with them.FGM is not "geographically limited".From your response in Message 15: Over 3/4s of those who have been mutilated have FGM II or FGM III, the most severe "forms".From your response in Message 15: From your first cite in Message 15: Sounds real enjoyable. Even better! So why does the author state: The "sexual pleasure" data came from interviews with 97 women. The author claims that 90% of these women experienced orgasm.That's remarkable. Studies here in the U.S. have shown that 70% of women do not climax thru penetration alone.I seriously doubt Ms. Lightfoot-Klein's results.So.FGM is intended to control women.
FGM results in infections, cysts, fistulae, pain and death.How is eradicating this barbaric ritual "a pretext to destroy cultural diversity"?

That's true. Children die because they are denied blood transfusions, medical treatment, etc. here in the U.S. as a result of their parents' religious convictions.I would argue, however, that no parent has the right to kill his/her child, whether thru medical neglect or mutilation.

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

What do you mean by that first question "Universally?"

---

Is there some definition of "universal" I am unaware of?I think it's pretty clear that I am saying that no right is absolute. Parents do have the right to raise their children and to impose their wills upon their children.But that right is not universal. There are some things they are not allowed to do. Since we all agree there is a line, the question reduces to deciding where to draw it. That task is much more difficult than deciding if there should be a line in the first place.

quote:

---

For the rest, that seems to be an absolutist moral position.

---

Which would be the complete opposite of what I was saying. Have we wandered into conservative-land where every day is Opposite Day?

quote:

---

Why don't parents have the right to kill their children?

---

For the same reason that killing isn't a right in general.Please, let us not be disingenuous and come up with trivial cases such as the child is physically attacking the parent who is afraid for his life and kills his child in self-defense.This goes back to what I said before: Universally? Of course not. You will notice, however, that the above scenario doesn't really fall under the heading of "parenting." It is a question of self-survival. We can come up with examples of parents withholding treatment to their terminally ill children that would, but we're back to my basic point: Universally? Of course not.But that would be playing with trivialities.Let us not trivialize this.

quote:

---

Why is this so? Who says?

---

We do. As a society. If we are going to value the ability for people to make their own decisions of conscience (for we certainly wish we would have that ability for ourselves), then it makes sense that we do what we can to let them make those decisions. It's a bit hypocritical to value freedom of thought and not allow people to exercise it. If we're going to take that decision away from them, then we had better come up with a pretty good reason why (see..."Universally? Of course not.")

quote:

---

No I would agree that in our culture it sort of falls out from the concept of individual rights, but even those have limits.

---

Hmmm...what was it that I said...I think it was, "Universally? Of course not." Now what might that mean? Is there a definition of "universal" I am unaware of?

quote:

---

Particularly with regard to children, parents and society tends to be able to make decision for them, when it is viewed in their best interest, and even if it might have long lasting negative effects.

---

Indeed. What was it that I said? Something about, "Universally? Of course not." Parents have a job to do. There will always be impositions on children by their parents. And there will always be impositions on parents by society.But to use your Jewish example, if it's an affront to forcibly convert Jews to Christianity (witness the post-humous baptism of Jews that has been carried out by Mormons and the actions of the Catholics on Jews), isn't it also an affront to forcibly submit an infant to the Covenant? There is no going back. Therefore, we need to be very sure about what we're doing.

quote:

---

And yes, that can also include death.

---

But not trivially.Why are you trivializing this? Since I have admitted from the get go that we're not talking about universals, why are you trying to focus on the trivial examples where the non-existent universal does not apply?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

brennakimi responds to me:

quote:

---

i've heard a lot of things about circumcision. this i have not heard.

---

Think about it: What is the complication rate of MGM? And how many men in the world have undergone MGM? Therefore, how many men will die because of MGM? How many will need to undergo sex re-assignment surgery? How many will have that "permanent, infected wound" you find so horrendous?How many women undergo FGM?Hint: This doesn't mean FGM is something other than horrendous. It means that trivializing MGM as "snipping off a little tiny bit of flesh" is to treat men as worthless.Which one is larger?

quote:

---

quote:

---

It's part of the socialization of being male: Your life is not important.

---

​

did i say that? i said snipping off a little tiny bit of flesh doesn't equate to excising large amounts of tissue and creating a permanent, infected wound.

---

There, you just did. That "little tiny bit of flesh" means the boy DIES. More dead boys. More dead boys than all of the females that undergo FGM. And here you are, trivializing it. And thus, you perpetuate the notion: Men's lives are not important. The death of a male is not as important as the disfigurement of a female.

quote:

---

don't put words in my mouth, jerk.

---

I don't have to, fool.Now that we have the ad hominem out of the way....

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hello, I was confused by your post. It was a reply to a post I made to Nator about her not providing evidence Jon had discussed.His point did not seem to be about whether FGM was used to control female sexuality. But I'll let a debate about his intentions fade as I don't like discussing intentions. It simply didn't seem to ME that was his overall point. That is what I was replying to.As far as mine goes, I said from the beginning and throughout that a large portion of FGM, particularly the Type 2&3 FGMs, are meant to control female sexuality. So, why repeat that to me?And the reason that its failure IS NOT besides the point, is that Nator claimed it was effective... the ONLY CLAIM OF HERS I WAS CHALLENGING, and TO WHICH JON RESPONDED. I don't understand what this point was supposed to mean. If given a chance to use better conditions they do. If complications arise they try to get help. If you mean they are indifferent to the fact that the procedure will lead to such risks... I agree. They believe the benefits are worth the risks. Okay, isn't this response just badgering me? Fine you wouldn't call 1/2 of Africa which is not the majority of the planet limited geographically. I would, ESPECIALLY COMPARED TO MGM. That was an important context you snipped off of your quote.Yes it is starting to move beyond Africa, and indeed throughout Africa. That does not make it a large worldwide phenomena, it still remains a pretty small (compared to world population) activity.I might also ask why you made such a big deal that 2/3s of the FGMs are type 2&3. Did I say something against that? All I said is that they come in different forms... 4 to be exact. 30% is not small. And the ones most often described (in pop lit) are limited to type 3, as if that was the whole of it. I was simply trying to get a description of the activity, not draw a conclusion. Did you bother reading the material? It explained that other parts of the body (the other erogenous zones) may very well take over from the clitoris. Perhaps that explains it. Or maybe the fact that they are so sexually repressed otherwise, heightens any experiences they do get?I don't know, but your "doubt" is about 100% less reliable than someone who at least provided some work I can look at. Is there a reason this author is likely to have made this up, especially given the nature of the practice? I'm sorry, restate that question as if it actually relates to my OP, and I'll give you a serious answer. Here's a hint, FGM is not the topic of this thread, it was simply an example "practice" which happens to be used to examine the topic of the thread.By the way, who is that in your avatar? I feel like I've seen the person before but I can't figure it out. The actress from Stargate?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

You aren't pro-choice? I'd have figured you were. How about pro-immunization? How about parents with conjoined twins and can have one killed for the proposed better life of the other?In any case, I would agree that in general WC does not allow for parents to kill their children... except abortion. What that does not answer, is whether values in the WC are somehow applicable to everyone else?Isn't it possible for another culture to view the nature of the parent/child relationship differently?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

molbiogirl writes:

quote:

---

In addition, in recent years, millions of Africans have migrated to Europe and North America, bringing their traditions with them.

---

Not really. Legislation was passed banning FGM in the United States despite the fact that we couldn't find a single instance of it having happened here. Since the pasage of the legislation, not a single prosecution has ever been carried out. Does that mean there are no women in the US who have undergone FGM? Of course not.It means that the girls are sent back home to have it happen. We have cases of women seeking asylum to prevent being sent back to Africa to have it performed (which is a recognized category of asylum in the US), but there is very little evidence of it happening here in the US.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

It wasn't clear what you meant by "Universal?" or I wouldn't have asked. Isn't asking better than assuming something wrong and starting a false argument? Please be kind to those asking for clarification. It isn't an insult. I think you make a very valid point that determining the line is more difficult than asking if a line should be made. But I'm not sure it is true to say there MUST be a line of some kind. Some cultures may very well place none. Even if not seen much or at all in practice, don't you agree that that is theoretically a possibility? Hey... I didn't say anything! I'm willing to take the example as is without addition.Yes, within WC parents would not have the right to kill their children ... granting exception for abortion... let's say fully developed children. That said, the question is if the rights within WC have any meaning or necessary connection to other cultures who might NOT have that proscription?Remember this is not about what should be allowed here, in one's one nation. It is about the applicability of our laws, and morals, to those in other cultures. Heheheh... well I like that example. I'll have to let religious types answer that as an issue. You'd think it'd have to be worse than killing since in some cases it would be thought destroying their soul.Please remember, next time I ask, just answer and not use it to insult me all post long. Okay?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Silent H responds to molbiogirl:

quote:

---

quote:

---

I would argue, however, that no parent has the right to kill his/her child, whether thru medical neglect or mutilation.

---

​

You aren't pro-choice?

---

A fetus is not a child.And to bring up abortion is to trivialize the issue. Since we all recognize that no right is absolute, focusing on trivial examples where a non-universal does not apply is disingenuous at best.

quote:

---

How about pro-immunization?

---

The expected outcome of immunization is the prevention of death, not the cause of death. While we know that immunization presents a risk of death, the risk of death from the diseases we're innoculating against is greater.And once again, it trivializes the discussion. Since we all recognize that no right is absolute, focusing on trivial examples where a non-universal does not apply is disingenuous at best.

quote:

---

How about parents with conjoined twins and can have one killed for the proposed better life of the other?

---

To do nothing will lead to the death of both.And thus, bringing it up is to focus on trivia. Since we all recognize that no right is absolute, focusing on trivial examples where a non-universal does not apply is disingenuous at best.

quote:

---

Isn't it possible for another culture to view the nature of the parent/child relationship differently?

---

Of course. All morality is arbitrary.Some methods are more effective than others.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Whoaaaa there! First, a fetus is a child (meaning their child), it is just not born. Second, whether you or I feel it deserves rights, many people do. Indeed, fetuses have increasingly been recognized as having separate rights.I might be wrong, but you would think a pregnant mother (and I suppose father if he stays in close proximity) that smokes, would be thought doing something harmful and wrong to the fetus/child, right? It can lead to de facto mutilation (deformation) and death. My discussion of immunization was not trivial, and your answer above gets right to the point. FGM is practiced not with the intent to kill, but with an expected outcome of preventing death and indeed granting a much happier life, though it presents a risk of death.Since our exchange was generated by FGM, this example is pertinent. I did not say that at all. There are cases where conjoined-ness would lead to diminished quality of life for both (not death for either) and so parents sometimes have a choice to have one die so that the remaining child can live a full life.This again, goes to choices parents are allowed to make (even in WC) which place a child's life in direct jeopardy, particularly given the idea it will lead to an improved life.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

It wasn't clear what you meant by "Universal?"

---

There is some other definition of "universal" I am unaware of?

quote:

---

Isn't asking better than assuming something wrong and starting a false argument?

---

Playing dumb is a good thing? Barring complete ignorance, confusion only arises when there are multiple possible outcomes. There is some other definition of "universal" I am unaware of?

quote:

---

It isn't an insult.

---

Playing dumb is.

quote:

---

But I'm not sure it is true to say there MUST be a line of some kind.

---

All I said is that we all agree there is a line. Since we're talking about arbitrary systems, "must" only applies in the sense of the system we have arbitrarily created.

quote:

---

Some cultures may very well place none.

---

Really? Where?

quote:

---

Even if not seen much or at all in practice, don't you agree that that is theoretically a possibility?

---

We're back to the question of whether or not there is an absolutist in the world:No, there isn't. Everybody is a relativist. It doesn't matter if they say they are. All you have to do is watch them and you see that circumstances affect their reactions.So if we're never going to see it, how can we base any results upon what never happens?

quote:

---

I'm willing to take the example as is without addition.

---

Here we go with the playing dumb again. Your response to molbiogirl's similar claim was to cite abortion, immunization, and separation of conjoined twins.Do you think I'm stupid?

quote:

---

That said, the question is if the rights within WC have any meaning or necessary connection to other cultures who might NOT have that proscription?

---

Certain arbitrary constructions of morality are more effective than others.

quote:

---

You'd think it'd have to be worse than killing since in some cases it would be thought destroying their soul.

---

According to their own traditions, god can wait. Otherwise, there'd be no way to convert.

quote:

---

Please remember, next time I ask, just answer and not use it to insult me all post long. Okay?

---

Please remember, next time you post, don't play dumb. Okay? And don't treat others as if they were stupid. Okay?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

If you think my question means I'm dumb, then I guess I am dumb. I certainly wasn't trying to play it.Since all it was, was a single word with a question mark I had no idea what you were trying to say. Maybe you were trying to ask what I meant by universal, or why I would use that term. Indeed, that was my initial reaction. Maybe by the word universal you meant a rule which applied to all situations, or maybe you meant a rule applicable to all people. This also was in my mind. I didn't know, so I asked. No I don't think you are stupid. My argument with her was directly related (spun off from) FGM, which is why I introduced the other elements.As far as between you and I, if you want it just straight out killing for no other reason, I can go with it. Until I add something else in a discussion with you directly, don't include what I am saying to someone else. We have a different debate arc. This isn't something I'd dispute. However, isn't there a line drawn on how to improve a morality's effectiveness, drawn from our own concept of individual rights? I won't play dumb, and I won't treat someone as stupid. Let me explain this directly. I have changed during the time I was gone and I do not feel I have time to waste on vain bickering.If I feel commentary berating someone is necessary (by me), then no reply at all is better still. And likewise, if I feel a person is generally interested in throwing insults instead of just debating points clearly, I will simply cut them off (by not answering).Can we agree to keep things civil? By the way, I like your new avatar.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

And the reason changing another culture makes sense is that it would fall within the limits we took for ourselves. So I can't take part in political pressure to emancipate women in other countries but it makes sense for me to try and change the country-life culture within my own nation even though it isn't my culture? My street isn't united as a community, but we have to learn to play by certain rules in order to live with one another peaceably. As we come into contact with other nations, certain rules will emerge that enable us to live together peaceably. Wolves is just silly. How often do Wolves in Germany encounter Wolves in America? So we are in agreement that social and political consequences to enact cultural change is legitimate? Of course that would be hypocritical. If I was living in a culture with limited I would want to have freedom 'imposed' upon me. Therefore it is not hypocritical to want to 'impose' freedom on others. What of it? Well obviously. I haven't said otherwise. But if you conceive that certain rights should be universal, then it would be inconsistent to not want those rights to be universal. I happens all the time. It's part of being alive. It's part of humanity. I love it. That doesn't mean I wouldn't fight it. Taking away people's lives is to be avoided whenever possible. That's my culture and I would want it more universal. Other people's cultures might suggest we should nuke everybody.My solution is that we accept this and try and change the other culture. Your solution is...what? We should let the other culture stay as it is for the sake of multiculturalism?

---

If I understand your position it is this:It is OK to enact certain social consequences for cultural disparity (economic sanctions for example) in some situations. We should expect other countries to do likewise to us. We should expect argument and debate as a means to change our culture as we change others.We should have limits on how far we go to change certain cultural practices - presumably those limits are somewhat determined by the severity of the cultural practice. We don't drop nukes because we don't like American self pitying Rock, and prefer Brit-rock, for example.If so, you presumably don't see any problem with using argument and boycotting and political pressures to try and elicit change in cultures that engage in extreme body modification. I don't think nator suggests we nuke or go to war as a first option for these kinds of things. In the end then, you seem to be agreeing with those people you say you disagree with.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

First, a fetus is a child

---

No, it isn't. It is on the way to becoming a child, but it isn't there yet.

quote:

---

My discussion of immunization was not trivial

---

Yes, it was for we are talking about arbitrary killing, not unexpected outcomes. Your example is interesting only in an academic sense and is thus a piece of trivia, tangentially related to the question at hand.I did not say it was without effect. I said it was trivial.

quote:

---

FGM is practiced not with the intent to kill, but with an expected outcome of preventing death

---

Oh, I agree that they aren't trying to kill the women outright. The idea that they are "preventing death" is risible.However, the intent is to control women and to try and say that the discussion is about the specific outcome of the bodily alteration (death versus disfigurement) and not the forced bodily alteration regardless of outcome is to play dumb.Do you think we're stupid?

quote:

---

Since our exchange was generated by FGM, this example is pertinent.

---

Incorrect. It is trivial. It is an attempt to bog the discussion down in trivial details when the point is the process leading to those details.Again, notice that I am not saying there are no effects or that those effects are not of any concern. By "trivial," I do not mean "innocuous."

quote:

---

quote:

---

To do nothing will lead to the death of both.

---

​

I did not say that at all.

---

Again with the playing dumb.You said, and I quote: The separation of conjoined twins where it is known that the separation will lead to almost certain death of one of them is not carried out unless leaving them conjoined will kill both of them.Otherwise, the separation of conjoined twins is carried out with the hope of saving both of them. The parents aren't killing their child.

quote:

---

There are cases where conjoined-ness would lead to diminished quality of life for both (not death for either) and so parents sometimes have a choice to have one die so that the remaining child can live a full life.

---

No, there aren't. Conjoined twins are never separated where remaining conjoined is not life-threatening but separation will most certainly lead to the death of one. Try and find the team of doctors to carry it out and a hospital that will provide the operating theaters.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I know you were responding to Nator. The "better" alternatives are horrific as well.And yes, I meant the mothers/etc. are indifferent to the risks. I read both cites in their entirety.Ms. Lightfoot-Klein's data do not agree with the other studies she cites in her article. "Enjoyed" and "pleasure" are a far cry from "orgasm".Her data also contradict more recent studies: Female genital mutilation and its psychosexual impact.
J Sex Marital Ther. 2001 Oct-Dec;27(5):465-73. Female Genital Cutting:: Clinical and Cultural Guidelines
Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey. 59(4):272-279, April 2004.There are over a dozen other, more recent, papers I could have cited. I did not accuse Ms. Lightfoot-Klein of manufacturing her data. I've read the entire thread.And I'll ask you again: How will eliminating this barbaric practice "destroy" the cultures that practice it? That's Laurie Anderson.