Metrion Cascade wrote:
And Broomstick - good points overall. But FGM and MGM are both unethical for the same reason if not to the same extent. It's like the difference between stealing $1000 and stealing someone's Dodge. They're not equally wrong, but both violate a person's right to security of property. And someone saying MGM is okay because FGM is worse is using a false dilemma fallacy
Huh. That's not where I was trying to go at all. I'd say circumcism and FGM, particuarly in the more extreme forms, are NOT comparable. After all, a man with a standard circumcism is able to achieve orgasm, reproduce, and urinate without difficulty or additional procedures. A woman with an infibulation is subject to repeated infections of the the genitourinary area. Her ability to piss is severely hampered. Clotting of menstrual blood may block the opening entirely, leading to a build up of necrotizing tissue and blood which, you can imagine, is no good at all for the woman. With no clitoris and extensive damage to other structures in the region she is extremely unlikely to experience sex as pleasurable, and may find it painful. She is not able to reproduce without assistance and further cutting. These are
common effects of infibulation.
So, while I will agree that circumcism is multilation, at least in the sense of bodily alteration without consent, the effects of a typical circucism are far, far less disabling than FGM. For that reason, I don't think they are comparable. It's like equating losing the tip of your pinkie finger with losing your entire arm. Yes, both are amputations, but in day-to-day life one really is a minor defect (and may pose no difficulty at all) and the other is a severely crippling defect.
Another false dilemma I hear alot on the RIC issue. People say that getting it done as a baby is better than getting it done as an adult.
And that I can't quite fathom - why anyone would think this is less painful for an infant than for an adult I can't imagine. The main difference is that the infant can't articulate his complaint.
I definitely would put up a fuss to prevent this being done to any child under my care (should that ever happen). As I said, I can tolerate a world in which this continues for religious reasons - but only because there are much worse injustices in the world that need attending to, and the impairment of life quality isn't horrific. When we've eliminated problems that leave people truly disabled, hungry, ill, abused, or needlessly dead I'll start campaigning to make circumcism completely illegal.
Or, to return to my earlier analogy - in an ideal world everyone's arms and fingers would be intact. However, we don't live in an ideal world. I realize that to some people - a professional piano player, perhaps - losing even a portion of a single finger can be a major life trauma, but for most it's an annoyance and disfigurement, but not something that will leave them crippled. Likewise, circumcism is repugnant (except for medical reasons) and may be a major trauma for some, but for most men who have had this done it's not disabling, pre-occupying, or probably even something they think much about. Would it be better for all foreskins and pinkie fingers to be intact? Yes. But it's not an issue I lay awake nights agonizing about.
