Female Genitalia Mutilation

Exactly the definition is really not important at all.

Is it more immoral is the only question. Set out an argument that way I think is the best idea. Semantic arm waving is a waist of time.

The way I see it, you can't argue circumcision in general is more immoral to a girl or a boy. Circumcision in itself has such a broad meaning. The act mostly done in it's name is the "scooping clean" of girls down there, not even the clitoris is reserved in some cases - and the ones that I've come to know most often is "sewing" the girl up amazingly. It is the complete and utter disregard for her genitalia and the girl's future itself. There can be little doubt that is mutilation and this type of circumcision is the most common. I think this is the reason why the term FGM exists as opposed to MGM.

No you can't which means its impossible to have a discussion about it. However somehow about 30 or so people have managed it on this thread, which makes me suspect that you are merely prevaricating.



Yeah technically, but I don't see it as, as morally wrong that's the point. Apparently though you have no means to discuss this so I'll go back to talking to people who do, if that's ok with you.

Definition of mutilation:

Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death.

Apparently Muslims regard tattooing as mutilation. I couldn't disagree on the basis of the above definition either.

Philosophy exam question:

Is circumcision more immoral than removal of the clitoris and labia?

Insert here >link to a precise definition of the practices involved and the circumstances surrounding them<

your answer, define circumcision and removal of the clitoris and labia?

Your score: 0

Try not to study anything to do with ethics is my advice.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here though so maybe I'm not getting it.

Right. Well thank for you that wonderful discussion

Yeah when I come across a typical morally tricky subject I find presenting it in the form of a question is best, those who can answer the question are probably more likely to be worth discussing the subject with. If they can't then they have nothing to contribute to a thread topic. As you say thanks for the wonderful discussion. I'm not sure why you came, but please do come again.

I came to merely ask a question on why there was a difference of definition. Your insight was interesting - nothing more than I suspected but then nevertheless valuable.

Originally, I wanted to know whether or not the Islamic practice of female circumcision was that much different to the male circumcision. The "sewing", "scooping" and/or any tampering with the actual clitoris is what is usually done to many girls in North Africa, in which perhaps triggered the use of mutilation, and quite rightly so. The Islamic procedure is known as a clitoridotomy, which is the removal of the hood that surrounds that clitoris. I don't know much about biology, but was wondering if it was comparable to the removal of the male foreskin?

It takes away excessive libido from women.

So? Why would you want to?

I wanted to add that it apparently does not reduce excessive libido from women (also the fact that you have to mutilate a women in order to control her is plain barbaric).

According to WHO there are no health benefits from female circumcision, in fact it can be detrimental to the health (the more severe the FGM, the more severe the health defects). This also applies to Type 1 FGM (the least severe type).