Multiculturalism

Of course, and when we do change our collective minds we'll change the law. Until then the law should be enforced.But you'll find that laws generally become more liberal not less. They support the rights of the vulnerable against the practices of the superstitious and the bigoted. The laws on FGM will never be repealed because our society will not condone child mutilation. Just like segregation and equality laws will not be repealed in a modern democracy. I can not ever envisage a time when a modern Western democracy will think it right to allow the mutilation of children in order to preserve the medieval traditions of another country within its own jurisdiction - FGM is an absolute wrong in the same way rape and murder is. Some things are just wrong and we know what they are.

One of the steps in changing our collective minds is slowing down on the enforcemet of bad laws. I'd say that not imprisoning people for practicing their culture is more liberal.

Cobblers - mutilating children is not a cultural practice that a liberal democracy could, should or would ever allow.Can't be bothered arguing further, you're obviously now in a corner you just can't back out of - no reasonable member of a modern democracy would argue for the continuation of such a barbarous practice.

And yet we do allow male circumcision. Female circumcision is only a difference of degree, not of principle.So "could" and "would" are false and "should" is just your opinion. Can you read at all? I have stated repeatedly that I do not argue for the continuation of FGM. I argue that its practitioners should not be imprisoned.

If you must....Why not restrict "genital enhancement" to consenting adults rather than impose it on minors?

How many times? It's not only my opinion. You can find the UN's list of countries with anti-FGM legislation and the multitudes of conventions and declarations made on it here:http://www.un.org/...HP%20_Berhane%20Ras-Work%20revised_.pdfYou're on the wrong side of this argument and it couldn't be more obvious.

The degree makes the principle.

I think this hits on a big difference between FGM and circumcision. FGM is seen not only as a mutilation or an act of control over a child. But it is seen as a cultural act against women. This same stigma does not surround circumcision. No one is worried that boys are being circumcised to oppress them as men.Whatever the arguments about FGM as far as it being 'abuse' or 'mutilation', the main thing is that FGM = sexism. And I cannot see why any free society would want such crap.Circumcision may or may not be nice, but at least it isn't designed to further a cultural image of one sex as subordinate to the other.

No, FGM is a totally different principle than male circumcision.

Why have parents decide anything for their children? Why not have newborns wiggle their toes to tell you whether they want the umbilical cut or not?

Every time. It is your opinion. It is not the only possible opinion, evidenced by the fact that other people have a different opinion.

It could but not necessarily. The principle involved here is whether or not the parents have the child's best interest at heart - and that principle is the same for both male and female circumcision.

Explain.

FGM is all about controlling women and male circumcision has nothing to do with controlling men.Jon hit the nail on the head: FGM = sexismMale circumcision has nothing at all to do with sexism.According to wiki on FGM:

quote:

---

The practice is rooted in gender inequality, attempts to control women's sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty and aesthetics. It is initiated and usually carried out by women, who see it as a source of honour, and who fear that failing to have their daughters and granddaughters cut will expose the girls to social exclusion.

---

Also, FGM has no health benefits while male circumcision does have health benefits.Wiki on male circumcision:

quote:

---

The procedure is most often elected for religious reasons or personal preferences, but may be indicated for both therapeutic and prophylactic reasons. It is a treatment option for pathological phimosis, refractory balanoposthitis and chronic urinary tract infections (UTIs);

---

Nope. It's the women who want to perpetuate it. Remember?