Moral Relativism

Mister Pamboli asks:

quote:

---

Can you point us to any cultures which practice genital mutilitation or slavery and which also believe that moral standards are grounded only in social custom?

---

Would you accept the United States? We know that it, as a culture, practices genital mutilation, but I'm not sure if you would agree that it believes that moral standards are grounded only in social custom (though with the appropriate caveat "that moral relativism is rarely absolute," as you state in a later post.) It would seem to come close, but I'm not sure what you would accept as a country that engages in "moral relativism."------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Mister Pamboli responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Would you accept the United States? We know that it, as a culture, practices genital mutilation, but I'm not sure if you would agree that it believes that moral standards are grounded only in social custom

---

​

The genital mutilation is typically carried out under the guise of an absolute imperative from God, but is tolerated by US society on the basis of relativism?

---

Well, the vast majority of people who were the victims of infant genital mutilation weren't put under the knife without anesthesia at the behest of a religious commandment.It was done "to make him look like Daddy.""Because it's cleaner."And worst of all:"Because I don't like the way it looks."------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

Personally I find it highly disingenous to compare male circumcision in any way to the awful, barbaric, and permanently damaging atrocity that is female genital mutilation.

---

Personally, I find it highly disingenuous to think that there is some sort of moral benifecence to strapping down an infant, literally rending his flesh, and doing it all without anesthesia or his consent, simply because they don't tend to remember it and can manage to retain some sexual function afterward.Approximately 20% of the entire male population of the world is circumcised. How many women in the world have had any circumcision of any kind?Major complications from male circumcision run about 1 in 500. Again, how many women in the world have had any circumcision of any kind?Does this mean female genital mutilation is somehow ok? Of course not. But to treat male genital mutilation as somehow a minor problem only goes to show just how ingrained the sexism is. A man is not allowed control over his own body...and if he complains, he's whining.Let's not forget that we're talking about the US. When was the last time you heard of a girl in the US having anybody go near her genitals with a knife without somebody threatening to kill the maniac?

quote:

---

Anyway, the studies indicate that circumcised men experience a smaller chance of sexual dysfunction at any point in life and, in general, lead more interesting and varied sexual lives.

---

You're only talking about the men who don't have complications.Again, serious complications run about 1 in 500. With 20% of the world's male population circumcised, how many do you think that is?When was the last time a girl was killed from circumcision in the United States?

quote:

---

I have no memory older than about 2 or 3. I certainly don't remember being circumcised.

---

Oh, that makes it all better, then, doesn't it? Let's smack the baby around while we're at it...he won't remember. Never mind that the foreskin hasn't separated from the glans at that point and needs to literally be torn away before it gets sliced off without anesthesia."He won't remember." That makes it ok.

quote:

---

(FGM is usually done to pubescent girls.)

---

MGM is usually done to pubescent boys, too. The US isn't the only place that engages in circumcision.

quote:

---

If nobody remembers the pain, why bother with dangerous anesthesia?

---

Because it's cruel. Is it alright if I were to break your arm as an infant so long as you don't remember?And studies show that the effects of having your flesh torn from your body has lasting effects, even though you don't remember the actual trauma.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

A man is not allowed control over his own body...and if he complains, he's whining.

---

​

Yeah, you are whining. By this logic we shouldn't bother tying off the umbilical cord. No surgery should ever be performed on infants, right? Not even beneficial ones?

---

So seeing as how breast cancer is a major killer of women, and there appears to be a genetic component to it, we should perform mastectomies on infant girls, especially those born to women who have family histories of breast cancer, just in case they're one of those that will contract the disease, right?Your argument is of the slippery slope.Should no man ever be circumcised? Of course not. There are medical conditions such as phimosis for which circumcision is a viable treatment.But don't you think that it is up to the man to determine if he wishes to be circumcised? Especially if the reason being given is that "I don't like the way it looks"? Do you seriously think it is appropriate to perform elective cosmetic surgery on a non-consenting patient?And that means parents shouldn't pierce the ears of their infant girls, either. It isn't their body to decide that. There is a difference between body alterations performed out of necessity and those performed out of vanity.A foreskin is not a birth defect.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Let's not forget that we're talking about the US. When was the last time you heard of a girl in the US having anybody go near her genitals with a knife without somebody threatening to kill the maniac?

---

​

Doctors continue to perform the practice on young girls in the US, as a matter of fact. Obviously, it's only in those communities that are originally from cultures that practice FGM but it does happen here.

---

Really? Where? It's illegal in the US. At the federal level.Now, does that mean it never happens? Of course not. But the point is that it is a federal crime to do it to a girl.But do it to a boy, and you're doing him a favor.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Again, serious complications run about 1 in 500. With 20% of the world's male population circumcised, how many do you think that is?

---

​

Complications of what kind?

---

They run the gamut from the immediate such as excessive bleeding at the time of the surgery to long term effects such as cutting off too much making for painful erections or even the need for reconstructive surgery, possible sex re-assignment, and even death.

quote:

---

quote:

---

When was the last time a girl was killed from circumcision in the United States?

---

​

It doesn't matter if they die.

---

Tell that to the boy who was killed for a surgical procedure he didn't need and had no say in its execution.

quote:

---

What matters is that FGM renders a female incapable of sexual enjoyment.

---

Only certain types. Not all methods of FGM are infibulation.And let us not forget, the reason that the West took up male circumcision was to prevent masturbation. And from what we can tell, circumcised men don't feel the same sensations during sex as uncircumcised men do.In short, circumcised men have reduced sexual enjoyment.I don't deny the problems associated with FGM. What I am saying is that MGM is not "just cutting off a little piece of skin."

quote:

---

Not to mention it greatly complicates childbirth and urination, even to the point of serious health risk.

---

I don't deny this.But if you're going to say that we shouldn't do this to girls because of the horrible consequences that can result, why do you not extend the same courtesy to the boys?Tell the infant boy who died from his circumcision he didn't need that he shouldn't be complaining.

quote:

---

These are two clearly different topics. Circumcision isn't even in the same ballpark as FGM and it's disingenuous to compare them.

---

The justifications for MGM are identical to FGM and it is disingenuous to trivialize the mutilation of boys as if they aren't connected.

quote:

---

I can imagine any purpose to such a comparison except for people to hijack the reasonable outrage people feel when faced with FGM and apply it to circumsision as well, where it's simply not appropriate.

---

I can't imagine any purpose to such a trivialization except for people to perpetuate the sexist attitude of man=bad/women=good, that if it happens to a man, he needs to suck it up but if it happens to a woman, it's the worst thing in the world. It is yet another example of how women are valued more than men.Of course, my full opinion is that everyone is devalued. Men get devalued in certain situations while women get devalued in other situations. F'rinstance, there is the attitude that a man needs to be promoted over a woman because he needs to "provide for his family" (and what about her?) But when it comes time to put one's life on the line, the death of a man is not considered as tragic as the death of a woman.I am hard pressed to call one "worse" than the other.

quote:

---

You're just riding on the coattails of people doing real work to stop FGM.

---

No, I was against MGM before I even knew that people tried to do something similar to women.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to John:

quote:

---

Look, I'm not trying to defend circimcision (although I just don't think it's that bad, and will probably have it done to any sons of mine). I'm just saying it's nowhere near as bad as the practice of FGM, which renders women incapable of sexual function in the vast majority of cases. It's outrageous to even compare them.

---

MGM renders many men incapable of sexual function, too, crash.If it's a horrible thing to do that to a girl, why do you hesitate when it comes to boys?Here's a thought: Why don't you let your sons determine what to do with their bodies?A foreskin is not a birth defect.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But unnecessary surgery?

---

​

I think it's up to the parents and their doctor to decide what is necessary and what is not.

---

(*blink*)So if the parents and the doctors get together and say, "You know, the mother's family has a long history of women dying early from breast cancer which we have seen has a genetic component...and in fact that it shows up early is fairly indicative of genetic-based breast cancer, so therefore we will do a prophylactic mastectomy on your daughters in order to make sure they don't get breast cancer," you'd consider that a decent thing to do? To completely alter the physical corpus of an infant on the odd chance that something might happen?There is a difference between circumcision performed for an actual physical dysfunction such as phimosis. But in the absence of any pressing medical need, what possible justification is there?

quote:

---

For many people, circumcision counts as necessary.

---

How? How is it any more necessary than FGM or mastectomy?

quote:

---

Since it's basically a harmless, cosmetic procedure,

---

Harmless? The removal of one of the most sensitive part of a man's skin, even more than the glans, even more than your fingers is "harmless"? A procedure that routinely results in complications up to and including the death of the patient is "harmless"?

quote:

---

I don't have a problem with that justification.

---

"Be a man and suck it up."

quote:

---

I don't have a foreskin; I've never missed it.

---

How can you miss what you've never had?

quote:

---

None of my partners have ever said "I wish you had a foreskin." In fact they've expressed the opposite sentiment.

---

So you're saying that your parents were justified in mutilating your body because your potential sex partners might not find it attractive?Don't you think you should have been the one to determine that?

quote:

---

A young guy I know went in for the procedure at age 14 because he didn't want to have a foreskin.

---

Good for him. It's his body. It's his to do with as he pleases.

quote:

---

As far as I know it's as useless as tonsils or the appendix. (Which is to say, not entirely useless, but not missed either.)

---

And that is where you're wrong. Circumcised men have reduced sexual function compared to uncircumcised men.

quote:

---

That's just my personal experience, but that experience has led me to believe that it's just not that bad, and preferable in the culture in which I live as an American.

---

By this logic, why did the US make female circumcision illegal, then? Why is there such an outcry against the procedure across the world? Every single justificiation for FGM is identical to the justifications you have made for MGM so if it is an atrocity to do it to a girl, why is it hunky-dory to do it to a boy?

quote:

---

Honestly, though, if the culture changes, and foreskins become preferred, well, that's what my son will have.

---

Why don't you let your son make that decision for himself? Once it's gone, you can't get it back (really). It's his body, let him decide.

quote:

---

My opinion on this is insufficiently strong to force me to swim against the tide.

---

So why not punt and let your sons decide for themselves?

quote:

---

But so far, circumcision is the norm in America.

---

And that makes it right?So far, circumcision is the norm in many place in Africa, and yet you seem to think that's a horrible thing.Why can't you extend the same courtesy to boys that you do to girls?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Dan Carroll responds to me:

quote:

---

Are you actually saying that it's the same thing to cut off the foreskin as it is to remove the clitoris and/or sew up the vagina?

---

Yes.By the way, not all female circumcision is infibulation.

quote:

---

I've got no foreskin; I can still readily enjoy sex.

---

As much as you would if you had one?The fact that you got through the procedure with sufficient sensation to achieve orgasm doesn't mean it is "harmless." There is a complication rate to MGM that renders many men incapable of having sex.Some even die.

quote:

---

There's a huge difference between the two.

---

There is no difference at all between the two.The justifications for MGM are identical to the ones for FGM ("It's cleaner." "It's more attractive." "It better for sex." "It prevents excessive sexual activity.")If it's wrong to do it to a girl, then it's wrong to do it to a boy.Tell the little boy who just died from a surgical procedure he didn't require that he should just suck it up because it's "harmless."

quote:

---

You might say it's one of degree only (I personally don't agree,) but the difference is still there.

---

There's no difference at all.Little boys die because of this. Isn't that a good enough reason not to do it?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Dan Carroll writes:

quote:

---

If a constitutional amendment were entered into law that conflicted with other amendments, it would be struck down by the judicial branch. But if the previously existing amendments were to be altered beforehand so as to prevent the conflict, the judicial branch would have absolutely no authority to strike it (or any law which conflicted with the now non-existent freedoms) down.

​

For instance, Bush Sr.'s flag-burning amendment would have required an overhaul of the first amendment.

---

Incorrect. Conflicting amendments are not a problem. If there were a constitutional amendment outlawing flag burning, it would not be a violation of the First Amendment precisely because the prohibition against flag burning is at the same level.We have such a case already in the Constitution. The Eighteenth Amendment prohibits the sale of alcohol. The Twenty-Second repeals the Eighteenth.But the Eighteenth is still in there. The later amendment supercedes it.So if another amendment came along and said flag burning is prohibited, then it is prohibited no matter what the First Amendment says.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

schraf...why did you misquote me? Here's what actually transpired:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Are you actually saying that it's the same thing to cut off the foreskin as it is to remove the clitoris and/or sew up the vagina?

---

​

Yes.

​

By the way, not all female circumcision is infibulation.

---

One wonders why you felt the need to distort what I said.Not only have you distorted the general substance of what I said, you have distorted the greater meaning as well.Indeed, from a physical point of view, removing the foreskin of the penis is not equivalent to removing the clitoris. But not all examples of female circumcision is infibulation. Many are the physical equivalent of the typical male circumcision: Removal of the clitoral hood.It is, however, morally equivalent: You do not have the right to hack off parts of my body.Yes, a parent has the obligation to look out for the welfare of a child and thus, if a child needs an operation to remove a tumor or face death, then the parents would be required to get the operation for the child.I fail to see how this compares to removal of a sexual organ.Every single reason that has been given for the removal of the clitoris is also used to justify removal of the foreskin. If it isn't legitimate to do so to girls, then it isn't legitimate to do it to boys.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

schrafinator responds to me:

quote:

---

Look, I AGREE WITH YOU, but I suppose you were too busy looking to "rail against" to notice.

---

No, I did notice. But given the tremendous chip on your shoulder, I couldn't help but see the glimmers of "But women have it worse!" in your statement. In other words, you agree that male circumcision is unnecessary, but somehow the implications of female circumcision are worse and are thus more worthy of outrage.

quote:

---

If you would come down off of your self-righteous soapbox for just a second, perhaps you would think before chastising a supporter.

---

If you would get over yourself and realize that you are not the end-all/be-all of discourse for just a moment, perhaps you would think before opening your mouth.If you agreed, then you should have just agreed. But no, you did more than that. You made a value judgement and tried to make it look like I was an idiot who didn't understand that removal of the entire clitoris is not the physical equivalent of removal of the foreskin ("See! Female circumcision is worse!")You misquoted me, schraf. The words you are looking for are, "Oops. I'm sorry. I'll try not to let it happen again." But I am not so naive as to think I'll ever hear you say that.

quote:

---

(jerk)

---

Fool.Now that we have the ad hominem commentary out of the way, perhaps you should just refrain from responding to me. You can't seem to handle it.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

schrafinator responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, I did notice. But given the tremendous chip on your shoulder,

---

​

You are projecting.

---

Yeah, sure. It can't possibly be you...it has to be me.[ad hominem commentary deleted for space]

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you agreed, then you should have just agreed. But no, you did more than that.

---

​

...and it's the END OF THE WORLD, a FEDERAL CASE, and a CAPITAL OFFENSE all rolled into one, too!

---

See, there you go again, projecting your own insecurities onto me. It couldn't possibly be because you were wrong...no, I have to be over-reacting.Notice, for example, that you were the one making the accusation in the first place. I, on the other hand, have always responded to your comments by taking them seriously until you digress into ad hominem commentary. Do you actually have an argument to make or is your only recourse at the moment to impugn my integrity? Because if you don't have something to say, I repeat again that you refrain from responding. It does not accomplish anything.[more ad hominem commentary deleted for space]

quote:

---

quote:

---

who didn't understand that removal of the entire clitoris is not the physical equivalent of removal of the foreskin ("See! Female circumcision is worse!")

---

​

It couldn't be that I was simply disagreeing with a small part of your claim.

​

Nope, could never be that.

---

Of course it's that, schraf. That's why I responded: You disagreed. I pointed out that your disagreement is disingenuous. I made a direct statement about the physical processes involved and you responded by distorting my statement and ignoring the point.The words you are looking for are, "Oops. My mistake. I'll try not to let it happen again."[even more ad hominem commentary deleted for space]

quote:

---

...not that I don't think you are a smart guy, you know, but you do have some issues.

---

Honey, we need to get you a magazine rack for yours.Again...now that the ad hominem commentary is out of the way, perhaps you should refrain from responding. It isn't accomplishing anything and you can't seem to handle it. When we get right down to it, your post contained precisely zero content and was nothing more than you stroking yourself to some mental orgasm. I hope you had fun. If you have something constructive to say, perhaps we can continue but until then, just keep your fingers to yourself.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

schrafinator responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

schraf...why did you misquote me?

---

​

I didn't.

---

Yes, you did. Here is what I actually said: Here is what you quoted: And while we're at it, here's an important point I made in my post not too long after: Why did you feel the need to ignore this point? Don't you think this informs why I am equating the two? That the justification for both male and female circumcision is identical and if the justification for doing it to a girl is bogus, then it is just as bogus for doing it to a boy?And here's a physical point I made...twice. First time: Second time: Now you tell me: Don't you think dying from the procedure puts it on the same level as female circumcision?So I have to ask: Why did you misquote me?

quote:

---

Someone asked you a "yes or no" question, and you answered.

---

With a great deal of information explaining why I answered the way I did. You seem to have ignored all of that explanation in order to twist my intent.

quote:

---

I disagreed with your view, so I replied.

---

No, you disagreed with a strawman you invented due to your ignoring of the text of my post. You saw me say that male and female circumcision are equivalent and rather than examine the entire post to see why it is that I am equating them, you invented a reason, projected it upon me, and responded to it.That's misquotation, schraf.

quote:

---

By answering "yes" to the question, you are saying, "Yes, it's the same thing to cut off the foreskin as it is to remove the clitoris and/or sew up the vagina."

---

Yes, but the question that wasn't asked for which I spent some time explicating and answering was that they are morally equivalent since every single justification used to perform female circumcision is used to justify male circumcision.I then pointed out that male circumcion has significant complications, reminding that many boys die from the procedure. And I remind you of my post which prompted Dan Carroll to ask his question in the first place: Did you read that post, schraf? Did you even bother to follow the thread back to make sure you understood where I was coming from?Yeah, infibulation as an intended consequence destroys a woman's sexual function. Male circumcision as an unintended consequence does the same thing (though one of the justifications for it is to reduce a man's sexual function) to the same level. Sexual reassignment surgery is not a minor thing. Death is not a minor thing.How many women in the world undergo female circumcision of any kind? Now given that about 20% of the entire male population of the world has been circumcised and given a serious complication rate of 1 in 500, how many men are in the same boat?Are you telling me that those men don't count?

quote:

---

Your following comment, "By the way, not all female circumcision is infibulation." is irrelevant to the question

---

Incorrect. It points out that the question is not nearly as simple as it was made out to be. The phrase "male circumcision" doesn't refer to removal of the penis. "Female circumcision," on the other hand, refers to a whole host of procedures ranging from nicking the clitoral hood to complete removal of the clitoris. So if you're going to complain about equation of the two, you're going to have to define just what it is you mean by "female circumcision." Not all female circumcision is infibulation.

quote:

---

because clearly, the question referred to infibulation, and asked if you felt that it was equivalent to the cutting off of the foreskin.

---

And it is. It is morally equivalent. The number of men who are disastrously affected by their circumcisions exceeds the number of women who are disastrously affected by theirs.Doesn't that make them equivalent? How many boys need to die before it becomes equivalent?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zhimbo responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

It is, however, morally equivalent: You do not have the right to hack off parts of my body.

---

​

Sheesh, by this logic cutting someone's fingernails and cutting someone's arm off are "morally equivalent".

---

Oh, gads...not you, too. Does nobody actually read for content? Yes, I know it's hard, but really people. It isn't like this place doesn't let you take your time to ponder over what another person put forward.Didn't you read the following comment in my post? So I have to wonder why it is you seem to think that I don't understand the responsibility of parents toward their children and how that involves making alterations to their physical person.But even if you failed to notice that, here's something for you to ponder:Your fingernails will grow back. Your arm won't. Before parents are allowed to alter the bodies of their children, it needs to be considered what the consequences are. Yeah, piercing your child's ears is not exactly a big thing, but it is still something that should never be done. It isn't your body. It can't be undone.To think that someone has control over your physical body to the point of making permanent changes to it without your permission and for no reason other than the cosmetic whim of the person doing it is, to use your words, "absurd and indefensible." It doesn't matter how "small" that change is. It cannot be allowed at any level.Consider, for example, how society would behave differently if it were a social norm that to do something even as small as piercing your child's ears is abhorrent. How would people behave when they had respect for each other's bodies and wouldn't dream of doing anything to them without their consent? How do you think people feel when they learn that someone can come along and cut you simply because they, not you, think you would look better that way?I seem to recall that some of the big reasons that people put forward for why female circumcision is barbaric are things like it makes them property, their bodies are not theirs to control, that it objectifies them, etc.So why is it any different when you're doing it to a boy? How is cutting him open without anesthesia and running the risk of complete mutilation of his penis if not outright killing him somehow not something to be just as upset over when it's someone with a Y chromosome?But then again, that is the social construction of masculinity: A man's body is for sacrifice and it is selfish of a man to try and maintain its integrity.And I can't believe I have to defend "Keep your knife away from me."

quote:

---

You're completely ignoring gradations of impact here.

---

No, you're completely ignoring actual outcome here.Sure, your circumcision may have gone off without a hitch. But do you know what the complications are from male circumcision? Do you know how often those complications show up? Little boys die from circumcision. Little boys have to have their genitalia surgically reconstructed, sometimes to the point of sex re-assignment, from circumcision.How many women in the world have undergone all forms of female circumcision (hint...not all female circumcision is infibulation)?How many men in the world have undergone male circumcision?What is the complication rate for male circumcision?How many men have had severe complications from their circumcicions compared to the total number of women who have had all forms of female circumcision?How many boys need to die before it is considered just as barbaric?

quote:

---

I disagree with circumcision, but to actually say that it's the "moral equivalent" of cutting off the clitoris and sewing up the vagina, (and removing labia minora, etc.) is patently absurd and indefensible.

---

Only because you don't seem to know just what male circumcision is like. You are confusing your mutilation and your subsequent acceptance of it with everybody else.Do you really think that opposition to a procedure that left a boy dead is "absured and indefensible"?How many boys need to die before it is considered just as barbaric?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Dan Carroll responds to me:

quote:

---

Out of curiosity, how many boys have died?

---

Depending upon the estimates, a couple hundred every year in the US alone.The problem is that statistics aren't kept, either by the government or by the medical assocations, regarding circumcision. It is the most performed surgery in the United States. In 1990, for example, there were about 2.1 million boys born in the US. About 59% of them were circumcised. There is a complication rate (meaning all complications from excessive bleeding all the way up to death) from about 2% to 10%, meaning that in that year alone, somewhere between 25,000 and 125,000 boys had complications in their circumcision.And that's just in the US.Even if we go with the American Academy of Pediatrics which claims a 0.2% complication rate (but says at the same time, "The exact incidence of postoperative complications is unknown," so where do they get the 0.2% number from), this means that there are over 130,000 males in the US living with a botched circumcision counting those born from 1940 to 1990.In studies in the UK and Australia, it was observed that between 9.5% (UK) and 66% (Australia) of those who were circumcised at birth needed re-circumcision later on since too little skin was taken at first. One of the things that circumcision actually is medically indicated for is phimosis which is where the opening of the foreskin is too small for the engorged glans, causing painful erections. When a circumcision is botched with too little skin taken, it can cause a scar to form at the site which actually causes phimosis.On the other side, if too much is taken the remaining skin doesn't have enough give and the shaft is pushed into the body...again, causing painful erections.And in the recovery, changing of the dressing (painful) causes stress in the baby which can actually cause heart arrhythmias (circumcision is routinely done without anesthesia) as shown by Ruff ("The circumcision was complicated by moderate bleeding and the baby's distress was sufficient to produce circumoral cyanosis and persistent tachycardia. It was concluded that crying induced by many dressing changes need to obtain haemostasis, resulted in raised intrapulmonary pressure sufficient to rupture a weak spot and cause pneumothorax. Although the child was managed successfully, this required a further hospital stay of 19 days.")Infection comes along for 10% of the cases in the UK, including gangrene of the penis not to mention other blood infections resulting in other complications such as tetanus, tuberculosis, osteomyelitis, pneumonia, and even cerebral palsy.But those are in the West. When we go to places like tribal Africa, we find that conditions are much worse. In 1990, a study on ritual male circumcision among the Xhosa of the Ciskei had a 9% mortality rate due to infection.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

schrafinator responds to me:

quote:

---

It has been a common undercurrent of yours in this thread to downplay the suffering of women from FGM

---

See, this is one of your issues.You seem to think that I am downplaying the suffering of women from FGM. Instead, I am doing the exact opposite. I am pointing out that the women are suffering from FGM and that we should rightly condemn the practice.I then point out that just as many if not more men are suffering from the practice of MGM, so if we are outraged and horrified at the practice when applied to women, then we should be equally outraged and horrified at the practice when applied to me.This is your problem: In my equation of MGM with FGM, you have manufactured the intent in me that I am reducing FGM to the level of MGM. Instead, I am raising MGM to the level of FGM.In short, you seem to think that men have it easy so if somebody thinks that men and women have it the same, then that must mean that women have it easy. It never occurs to you that the point is that men and women both have it rough.

quote:

---

I also notice that you failed to include the last part of my post, which was "By answering "yes" to the question, you are saying, "Yes, it's the same thing to cut off the foreskin as it is to remove the clitoris and/or sew up the vagina."

---

That's because the lead in to it was an erroneous assumption. Since we know that false assumptions lead to false conclusions, the rest of your statement becomes irrelevant. Didn't you read my post? In other words, it doesn't matter what you think about it since your analysis of the situation is flawed. I did not accept the premise that the question was a simple "yes-or-no." Therefore, for you to try and analyze my response of "yes" as if the question were a simple "yes-or-no" is to engage in a logical fallacy.

quote:

---

It could have been a misunderstanding on my part, or carelessness in reading your post on my part, but it was NOT a misquote.

---

It most certainly is. It completely ignores the part where I point out that the original question cannot be answered in a simple yes-or-no fashion. There are many justifications for why someone might say yes and many justifications for why someone might say no. As I pointed out, it is true that the abstract notion of removal of the foreskin is not equivalent to the abstract notion of removal of the clitoris. However, reality is not as nice and neat as that. Male circumcision is not as clean and neat as it is made out to be. When your circumcision is botched and you contract gangrene in the penis requiring its removal, it's just as bad as having your clitoris removed. When you die from the procedure, it's just as bad as having your clitoris removed.In short, schraf, there is a difference between the theory of circumcision and the actual reality of it. Doctors don't mean to kill the boys, but they do.How many boys have to die before MGM becomes as bad as FGM? How much suffering does a male have to go through in having his skin literally torn off his body without anesthesia before it becomes as bad as FGM?Once again, I am not making light of FGM. I am pointing out that it is horrible and that it is you who are making light of MGM.

quote:

---

It's a little rich for you to condescendingly demand apology from me, declare that you have little faith that you will receive one because you hold a low opinion of me, then refuse to do what you require of me (for a much more grievous offense).

---

Um, when SLPx makes his opinions known, I'll deal with him. Until then, I will not substitute your judgement for his.Hint, consider the words "use children in some sort of social experiment, in the name of 'rights.'" and ponder how anybody could think that there is any significant number of people who consider adopting a child as some sort of political statement, not to mention being able to get through the screening process without that point being found out.Does the word "recruit" mean anything to you with regard to why someone would want to adopt a child?Have you not been paying attention to the reasons why gay people are refused the right to adopt children and how the exact phrase SLPx used, namely "social experiment" and "in the name of 'rights,'" gets bandied about?So yes, I do demand an apology from you. You made a statement to me which I found to be inappropriate. Therefore, I am the one that seeks an apology.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

schrafinator writes:

quote:

---

At a certain point it becomes clear that some people are so self-righetous that it renders them incapable of compromise or being reasonable.

---

Amen, sister!Have you considered the possibility that you should remove the plank from your own eye...?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!