Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    you're annoying
    no I'm not, I'm "done".
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    Stop trying to defend the indefensible.

    Just admit you're trying to justify what happened to you or someone close to you.

    It's sickening people try find a reason to justify violating a child's body. Remember the ideas behind consent? If for example you consciously have sex with a plastered person, it's rape / sexual assault.

    Same principle here.

    Posted from TSR Mobile

    You can say no.

    You needn't perpetuate the status quo.
    Lol so because you disagree with it, that makes it indefensible?
    I don't need to justify anything to you, who are you to me? Nobody. I don't care for your opinion. I gave my opinion on this topic and it doesn't become evil or indefensible just because the majority of you think it's wrong.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    no I'm not, I'm "done".
    Bye. Don't quote me again.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    make me.
    I'll "quote you" whenever you're spouting culturally-justified bullcrap
    still here huh? I thought you were done?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    still here huh? I thought you were done?
    consider it my conclusion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    How about we just all agree not to cut at the genitalia of children and move on, seems pretty reasonable, only religion it would seem could make otherwise nice people think this behavior is OK........... it's completely mad.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goddess Flora)
    Because you haven't actually given a proper reason why FGM is bad and circumcision isn't. You mentioned how the FGM operation itself has disastrous effects, but QE2 already said that if done by true professionals in clinics with the proper equipment that it carries no more risk than circumcision.
    This isn't true. Even when conducted by true professionals, the effects of FGM include an increased risk of UTIs, menstrual problems, kidney impairment that can lead to kidney failure, pelvic infections that can lead to infertility and complications with childbirth. If male circumcision is conducted by true professionals, the risks include possible but unlikely infection, and headache.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    And circumcision hurts the person if is being done to. If you doubt me, just use a pair of scissors to make a little snick in your foreskin, and then get back to me. Oh, of course, you can't.
    I'm sure there is a law in Britain which strictly forbids to inflict any severe damage to babies. And you are sure that male circumcision inflicts terrible damage. So what's the problem? Take your scissors, go to a court and open appropriate criminal case. :cool:
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Lol so because you disagree with it, that makes it indefensible?
    I don't need to justify anything to you, who are you to me? Nobody. I don't care for your opinion. I gave my opinion on this topic and it doesn't become evil or indefensible just because the majority of you think it's wrong.
    Are you talking about MGM or FGM here, because your argument makes no distinction?
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    This isn't true. Even when conducted by true professionals, the effects of FGM include an increased risk of UTIs, menstrual problems, kidney impairment that can lead to kidney failure, pelvic infections that can lead to infertility and complications with childbirth. If male circumcision is conducted by true professionals, the risks include possible but unlikely infection, and headache.
    Could you cite the references that show that clinically performed clitoral de-hooding or labiaectomy produces all these problems.
    Thanks.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Taking the word of a keyboard warrior as expert medical advice?

    :toofunny:
    Ah, so you can see me!

    But you can take the word of the medical profession who regularly perform clinical clitoral hoodectomies and labiaectomies, with complications a rarity.

    I can see now why you avoid responding to me. As you say...:toofunny:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Are you talking about MGM or FGM here, because your argument makes no distinction?
    I'm talking about his comment saying that I'm defending the indefensible
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    I'm talking about his comment saying that I'm defending the indefensible
    Yes. So which do you think is indefensible, because your argument seems to apply to both?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Could you cite the references that show that clinically performed clitoral de-hooding or labiaectomy produces all these problems.
    Thanks.
    Can you cite references that show that FGM involves solely conducting either of those procedures alone without removing or tampering with another part of the genitalia?

    Clitoral dehooding alone will increase sexual drive and pleasure - the exact opposite of what they are trying to achieve. So, as far as I know, the only time this procedure is performed is if they also remove a part of or all of the clitoris as well. 90% of FGM cases involve exicising some of or all of the clitoris, so the problems I have listed are prominent in most cases, which is why I deemed them to be appropriate to list.

    Since you have never experienced clitoral dehooding or labiaectomy, how can you pass judgement as to its effect on someone's life? Wasn't this was your earlier argument? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Are you talking about MGM or FGM here, because your argument makes no distinction?
    I've never defended FGM. That doesn't mean it cannot be defended just because I disagree with it
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Can you cite references that show that FGM involves solely conducting either of those procedures alone without removing or tampering with another part of the genitalia?
    I never made that claim. Both clitoral hoodectomy and labiaectomy, when carried out for non-medical reasons, are classed by the WHO as FGM.

    You claimed that FGM caused a range of complications. If you were referring only to procedures carried out in non-clinical and unsanitary conditions by unqualified, non-medical people, then you sould say so. Because male circumcision under these conditions is far more dangerous and carries the risk of more complications than you are claiming in your argument.

    Clitoral dehooding alone will increase sexual drive and pleasure - the exact opposite of what they are trying to achieve. So, as far as I know, the only time this procedure is performed is if they also remove a part of or all of the clitoris as well. 90% of FGM cases involve exicising some of or all of the clitoris, so the problems I have listed are prominent in most cases, which is why I deemed them to be appropriate to list.
    Irrelevant to the point. The WHO makes no distinction as to the purpose of the FGM.
    The issue is why you consider the non-consensual removal of parts of the female genitals to be unacceptable, whereas you consider the same procedure when carried out on males to be acceptable.

    Since you have never experienced clitoral dehooding or labiaectomy, how can you pass judgement as to its effect on someone's life? Wasn't this was your earlier argument? :rolleyes:
    Don't think so. Quote the relevant statement and I'll see.

    And this is the point of the argument, the procedure (remember the WHO definition of FGM) if carried out clinically, may not lead to an impact on someone's life. Some adults even elect to have the procedure. That is entirely irrelevant.

    The whole point is that such procedures should not be unnecessarily carried out on children, regardless of the safety or minimal impact.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    I've never defended FGM. That doesn't mean it cannot be defended just because I disagree with it
    It's just rather confusing because the argument you use for supporting male circumcision can be used to support female circumcision. So I'm interested as to why you consider one to be acceptable and one not.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    It's just rather confusing because the argument you use for supporting male circumcision can be used to support female circumcision. So I'm interested as to why you consider one to be acceptable and one not.
    I've explained it so many times directly to you and a few others.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    You claimed that FGM caused a range of complications. If you were referring only to procedures carried out in non-clinical and unsanitary conditions by unqualified, non-medical people, then you sould say so. Because male circumcision under these conditions is far more dangerous and carries the risk of more complications than you are claiming in your argument.
    *sigh* even when FGM is conducted by healthcare professionals, the risks I have listed are still prominent. I'm not repeating that again
    Irrelevant to the point. The WHO makes no distinction as to the purpose of the FGM.
    Yes it does.
    'FGM is often motivated by beliefs about what is considered acceptable sexual behaviour. It aims to ensure premarital virginity and marital fidelity. FGM is in many communities believed to reduce a woman's libido and therefore believed to help her resist extramarital sexual acts.'
    The issue is why you consider the non-consensual removal of parts of the female genitals to be unacceptable, whereas you consider the same procedure when carried out on males to be acceptable.
    I've explained to you many times why I don't consider it to be the same procedure.

    Don't think so. Quote the relevant statement and I'll see.
    You said: 'If you have no experience of having a foreskin, how can you make a judgement as to the effect of its removal on your life?'
    This is clearly implying that we can only make judgements about things we've personally experienced.
    The whole point is that such procedures should not be unnecessarily carried out on children, regardless of the safety or minimal impact.
    Perfectly valid opinion. In my opinion, since male circumcision is a relatively simple procedure that poses small risks and small benefits, it should be the decision of the parent(s).
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    I've explained it so many times directly to you and a few others.
    Yes, but your explanations make no sense in the context of the question. When comparing two almost identical situations, you are claiming that one is acceptable and one is unacceptable.

    I'll make this very simple.
    Is medically unnecessary, culturally motivated labiaectomy of an infant girl, carried out under clinical conditions, acceptable or unacceptable?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.