British Expatriate Network

The point is : Male circumcision is nothing like FGM, try male castration if you would like to compare it :???:

Ben, female circumcision is not just because, nor is it religious. The clitoris is removed so the female cannot have pleasure. The vaginal opening is sewn up to make the entrance smaller, so the menstrual blood often cannot escape properly and causes problems, at birthing the pubic bone often has to be broken to allow the child to emerge.
There are various kinds, according to the old report I have from the 70's, the report is called , Female circumcision, excision and infibulation.
Infibulation, performed in clinics in London, involves the cutting of the clitoris, labia minora, and at least the anterior two thirds and often the whole of the medial part of the labia majora.
This is not comparable in the least to male circumcision which involves removal of the foreskin. What we're talking about with the female is removal of the major parts of the genitalia and sewing up what remains to make a tiny hole. Leads me to wonder what the penis problems some guys who allow this have.
There's also the fact that male circumcision is done before the child is a year old. Female castration is done as the child approaches puberty.
You have a vagina, you know what one looks like. Imagine it being cut away and sewn into a straight line with a tiny hole at the bottom near the anus.
There was a documentary shown in the UK a while back which took loads of awards. I don't know if Oprah showed parts of it here. Seems to me she'd be the only one with sufficient balls to show it.
To compare the two is not a good idea, acceptance of this procedure as a religious act makes one wonder about religion. There is nothing in Islam requesting this be done.
I may be vague in my posts but having worked with women who underwent this procedure believe me, the two cannot be compared.

I don't disagree that one is more serious than the other regarding the amount of pain involved and if not done properly can cause irreperable damage. I'm sorry if I didn't explain myself properly. It is performed for religious reasons as well as cultural reasons - different societies believe different things and yes it is done to stop women experiencing orgasms but that is the religious side (Annie, yes I know the documentaries, have seen many and know of women who have had this performed and women who want this done because it is part of their culture and regret not having had it done as a child).

My point regarding the connection between male and female circumcision is that a part of the body is taken away without the consent of the person. Many men feel violated for having had this procedure done too and if the person cutting the foreskin cuts too low they cut the head of the penis causing severe damage. I don't agree that it is the same as castration because women can still fall pregnant. A man castrated, can't father children but I see your point Cel. And although a woman is stitched this isn't performed all the time and isn't necessary if the surgery is performed correctly (it doesn't have to involve all your point, Annie, in order to satisfy cultural recognition), which goes back to the original point that to stop such a clinic in London from doing such a procedure would actually cause more pain and harm to the woman. If this procedure is performed carefully and with a qualified surgeon it doesn't have to mean a life of pain for the woman or the inability to even walk properly. Take that away and you will go backwards in healthcare for women, not forwards.

I am certainly not saying I agree with this and I hope you weren't thinking that I think it should be made legal. I don't. It is barbaric and uncalled for. But it is part of some societies and cultures that have been around for a long time. It even happens in the USA.

Alice Walker sums it up well when she did her book "Possessing the Secrets of Joy" and her documentary among an African culture who still perform FGM. You can't interfere with their way of life because they have done this for a very long time. What you can do is find out the reasons why, educate then leave alone but be there when women need you. And the same approach would need to be taken with India and the abortions of female babies.

I understand that you don't agree with the procedure Ben, but which religion? Nothing in Islam requires mutilation. Nothing denies pleasure to women. All Islam asks is no promiscuity.
You may say the procedure does not require stitching, once the labia are cut off you have to stitch to stop bleeding.
To say it is culturally acceptable to only do part of the procedure, I think not, anyone doing this kind of crap wants it done correctly. Totally.
To say the woman can still fall pregnant is one thing, the numbers of women who die at the birthing because of this procedure seems to be overlooked.
Not everyone can afford a clinic. The procedure is still illegal in London clinics and still done.
The way i see it, this kind of culture, much like cannabalism, should be erradicated. Our forefathers may have done many things, which become 'culture', it doesn't make them right and it doesn't make them legal.
As to having a choice, they must be independently wealthy mothers who can stop this procedure.

Holy f**k. :shock:

"FGM predates Islam and is not practised by the majority of Muslims, but has acquired a religious dimension. Where it is practised by Muslims, religion is frequently cited as a reason. Many of those who oppose mutilation deny that there is any link between the practise and religion, but Islamic leaders are not unanimous on the subject. The Qur'an does not contain any call for FGM, but a few hadith (sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad) refer to it. In one case, in answer to a question put to him by 'Um 'Attiyah (a practitioner of FGM), the Prophet is quoted as saying "reduce but do not destroy. Mutilation has persisted among some converts to Christianity. Christian missionaries have tried to discourage the practice, but found it to be too deep rooted. In some cases, in order to keep converts, they have ignored and even condoned the practice. " FGM was practised by the minority Ethiopian Jewish community (Beta Israel), formerly known as Falasha, a derogatory term, most of whom now live in Israel, but it is not known if the practise has persisted following their emigration to Israel. The remainder of the FGM-practising community follow traditional Animist religions."

"Female genital mutilation (FGM) is the term used to refer to the removal of part, or all, of the female genitalia. In some forms of infibulation, less tissue is removed and a larger opening is left. The vast majority of genital mutilations performed in Africa consist of clitoridectomy and Sunna. Sunna circumcision is where the tip of the clitoris and/or its covering (prepuce or hood) are removed. In some traditions a ceremony is held, but no mutilation of the genitals occurs. The ritual may include holding a knife next to the genitals, pricking the clitoris, cutting some pubic hair, or light scarification in the genital or upper thigh area."

Annie, I'm not disagreeing with you that this, along with other barbaric practises need to be stopped but for us to go in and tell these cultures that they are wrong and take over is just asking for trouble. Education is the best way and has been proven to work because many African countries are taking notice and doing something about it. And you are wrong that it is only wealthy mothers that can stop this procedure. The numbers are decreasing (albeit slowly) and the ages for the procedure as well as the severity are also dropping.

I do find it amazing that we can take the higher ground on something like this but woo be tide anyone disagree with the idea of making late term abortions illegal! I can't imagine anything worse that feeling the pain of having your brains sucked out, can you?

Hadith sayings are simply an interpretation by a person not present at the time, not having personal knowledge, for someone to interpret what was in the prohets mind is much like the religious nuts over here saying Sharon was struck by a massive stroke for giving away parts of Israel. These are interpretations from man, who in my opinion, had an agenda. This is not Islam.
Much like the preaching of sucide bombings and paradise. it has nothing to do with Islam, but is a political tool used by so called "men of God"
I agree that education helps but over 30 years I've seen little progress in bringing a halt to this practise and for doctors in private London clinics to carry out this illegal practise does not make it anything other than a crime for which they should be struck off.
I won't even go near the abortion question, I'm one of those pro choice people.

I think most people are against late term abortions. The trouble with the abortion laws here is there are no limits to them.

Never mind, with two new religious white men on the Supreme Court I'm sure that law will be overturned. White Men obviously know everything and are the most impartial people going, otherwise they wouldn't be so over represented on the SCOTUS. Doesn't matter that none of them have the equipment they're ruling on.

So, therefore it is done in the name of religion :roll: Annie, isn't all religion (according to those who don't believe) an interpretation by a person?

I do find it amazing that you are dismissing the abortion (which wasn't a question but a point of fact) point but still harping on about private London clinics. Yet not once do you mention private US clinics? Do you believe it doesn't happen here too? It has been proven beyond a doubt, scientifically, that babies have feelings well before full term. Yet you dismiss this fact even though newborn babies receive the FGM procedure too. I personally see it more heinous that we as a nation legally allow a baby's brains to be sucked out to kill it and then condemn other nations for being cruel.

By all means educate those who are ill informed but I find it hypocritical (Dianey is making this point also I believe) that we judge other cultures/nations/societies as being barbaric when we have barbaric procedures, legally, in our own society and argue to keep such acts!

Ok Ben, I got the feeling you were dissing Islam. Of course all religion is an interpretation , usually of written teachings. The interpretation cannot be found in the Koran. This is some one telling us what the veiled meaning is. Or at least what they think it is. I think you might find few Muslims who would agree with it being an interpretation they'd agree with. Just as with the sucide bombers. Are they religious. Or is religion being used to attempt to cover a crime?
i don't mention private clinics over here because I have no knowledge of the practice here, only in London.
As to the abortion question, as I say, I have no desire to discuss it. You can empathize all you like with what the baby feels, you can have all the facts about what the baby feels, but the choice lies with the mother.
i agree the practice is barbaric, as is infibulation, maybe the way to solve the problem would be to find another way to abort the child.

edited to add the following reference page which may help explain the difference between Hadith and Koran.

http://www.submission.org/women/mis.html

I think you'll find the relevant passage in article 1. The page also covers FGM.

Actually Ben the point I was trying to make is that the world has a long history of violence and hostility towards women. Our own culture is not more than two steps away from it. It's only been 80 years since women have been able to vote in the west.

In our own enlightened society, I am amazed that 11 men and 1 woman are allowed to vote on something that is really a female only issue. Can you imagine the arrogance of 11 women and 1 man voting on something like male circumcision?

The other point I was trying to make is that Roe v. Wade has no limit set on abortion like other countries do. Therefore late term abortion is still legal here. I remember having a discussion on here about three years ago when I was in school. I asked a midwife what the difference on a womans health would be to give birth to a live baby v. a dead one. Apparently there isn't a difference. So that line about "if the baby is threatening the life of the mother" seems to be a lot of bull. I think if this country didn't have the late term abortions there would be less debate on the fact that abortion itself is legal.

I can, I do, usually after accidently catching a glimpse of the president on TV.
Oh yes, I can and I do. In color too. :twisted:

lol

And David, thanks for taking it seriously and looking at the wider picture. It's not just the birth rate itself, but the social impact of the decisions made leading to this change and the repercussions that we should consider. Although a large number of women have abortions, I don't imagine that many take it lightly. As I understand, the procedure is far from pleasant and can have psychological repercussions, regardless of the reason for the abortion.

Regarding circumcision and "circumcision" -well I'm totally against both as any search on the topic with show from our previous discussions. But I will add that the female version is never performed as a medical necessity.

I do agree that the outlawing of medical procedures can lead to a more dangerous back-street scenario, but late-term abortion is not allowed in the UK and I get the impression that the incidences have dropped since it was.

And that is why I don't believe we can judge another society but educate and hopefully help things change.

Annie, I wasn't having a go at any religion (I only put those points on religion because you stated that FGM has nothing to do with religion when in actual fact religion is often used as a reason) or even trying to have an argument with you :) I think we can safely say that we both agree that FGM should be stopped. We just see it from different points of view. You've seen women who have had the procedure, I've seen women who have both had the procedure and want it citing very good reasons as far as they are concerned.

I just don't see the fight against FGM any different to the fight for women's rights, the fight for babies to not be dumped in the streets, the fight for children to not be shot just because a government decides they don't want to have to care for them, or the fight to save babies from the barbaric practice of 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions just because a good enough reason has been given.

Dianey, I totally agree with your point that if late term abortions were made illegal there wouldn't be as much of an outcry. Personally, I don't believe there would be as many abortions being wanted if women had more control over her body and society's expectations weren't so tight on how women should act.

Okie dokie Ben, although i find it hard to believe any woman would volunteer for this kind of treatment.