Making genital mutilation illegal and means of enforcement.

[LordKiran]

I wanted to make a separate thread for a subject in the gender egal thread so as not to derail that one.

I'm going to throw my cards on the table by saying that I think genital mutilation is among the most barbaric practices that we still allow in the western world conceptually. I'm not against informed adults/teens choosing to undergo such operations for religious purposes but am universally against their application to newborns and young children. These practices can not only have potential health and psychological concerns for the patient but are a violation to their rights as individuals.

The question is to what degree such prohibition laws should be enforced and how.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think you need to look at male and female procedures differently as one does far more damage than the other.

That said, I strongly opposes both. I agree with your reasoning. I see no reason why it should not qualify as sexual assault and much worse.

If it's wrong for your to touch a child's genitals for pleasure (and it certainly is), why is it not wrong to mutilate them and disfigure them to prevent pleasure?

 

[LordKiran]

I think you need to look at male and female procedures differently as one does far more damage than the other.

That said, I strongly opposes both. I agree with your reasoning. I see no reason why it should not qualify as sexual assault and much worse.

If it's wrong for your to touch a child's genitals for pleasure (and it certainly is), why is it not wrong to mutilate them and disfigure them to prevent pleasure?

I don't really see the need to create value distinctions when both should be illegal in some fashion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have a hard time picturing it being done without the caretaker(s) knowing about it.

If it happens and they don't report it, they're charged.

 

[LordKiran]

I have a hard time picturing it being done without the caretaker(s) knowing about it.

If it happens and they don't report it, they're charged.

Who do we consider a caretaker? Is Lucy who sometimes watches the neighbor boy for an evening a caretaker? I think caretakers should be encouraged to report it but charged? I'm not convinced that would be an ultimately positive outcome.

 

[bilby]

I have a hard time picturing it being done without the caretaker(s) knowing about it.

If it happens and they don't report it, they're charged.

Who do we consider a caretaker? Is Lucy who sometimes watches the neighbor boy for an evening a caretaker? I think caretakers should be encouraged to report it but charged? I'm not convinced that would be an ultimately positive outcome.

That's a typical LP solution - punishing people for doing something vaguely wrong, regardless of the fact that the punishment will incentivise people to do the exact opposite of what you want them to do.

You should never penalize someone for reporting something late, or for failure to report it at all, when their evidence is possibly crucial to showing beyond reasonable doubt who was responsible for the wrongdoing in the first place.

Imagine how many people would line up to testify against a bank robber after his arrest, if they knew that, if he was convicted, they would probably be charged with not having reported the robbery when they first found out it had occurred.

You cannot compel people to tattle to the authorities, without having the reverse of the effect you are trying to achieve. Only crazy authoritarians would even contemplate such a stupid notion.

 

[LordKiran]

I have a hard time picturing it being done without the caretaker(s) knowing about it.

If it happens and they don't report it, they're charged.

Who do we consider a caretaker? Is Lucy who sometimes watches the neighbor boy for an evening a caretaker? I think caretakers should be encouraged to report it but charged? I'm not convinced that would be an ultimately positive outcome.

That's a typical LP solution - punishing people for doing something vaguely wrong, regardless of the fact that the punishment will incentivise people to do the exact opposite of what you want them to do.

You should never penalize someone for reporting something late, or for failure to report it at all, when their evidence is possibly crucial to showing beyond reasonable doubt who was responsible for the wrongdoing in the first place.

Imagine how many people would line up to testify against a bank robber after his arrest, if they knew that, if he was convicted, they would probably be charged with not having reported the robbery when they first found out it had occurred.

You cannot compel people to tattle to the authorities, without having the reverse of the effect you are trying to achieve. Only crazy authoritarians would even contemplate such a stupid notion.

What are you kidding? Such laws are hugely successful! The USSR had people practically lining up to tattle on their closest neighbors!

 

[RVonse]

Does circumcision count?

 

[Arctish]

Yes.

And before anyone starts posting about medical necessity, that's a different kind of surgery.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The young Jewish lad told me he was Circus Sized. Impressive.

 

[Playball40]

???

What are you talking about? Just curious. My poor FIL had to have a circumcision done at 80 years old for penile cancer. But it was technically the same procedure.

Yes.

And before anyone starts posting about medical necessity, that's a different kind of surgery.

 

[Politesse]

As useless, and dangerous, as trying to outlaw abortion. We should pursue community education on the connected health issues, and push religious leaders to encourage more moderate and symbolic forms of the surgery, as was done with male circumcision in my country. I am all for trying to discourage the practice by traditional means like conversation and activism, but trying to use the law as a coercive weapon against minority cultural expression is never a good idea; the social costs of fascism outweigh the social gains.

 

[Arctish]

???

What are you talking about? Just curious. My poor FIL had to have a circumcision done at 80 years old for penile cancer. But it was technically the same procedure.

Yes.

And before anyone starts posting about medical necessity, that's a different kind of surgery.

Your FIL had a life saving surgery that involved removing a diseased body part in order to stop the spread of something that could have killed him. It's comparable to my father's partial amputation of his foot to stop the spread of gangrene.

Circumcision as religious or cultural expression removes a healthy body part. It's unnecessary for the preservation of life. That's a different kind of surgery even though it involves the same body parts. I have no problem with it if the person being circumcised is a consenting adult. I don't think it's right to impose it on a child.

 

[Jarhyn]

As useless, and dangerous, as trying to outlaw abortion. We should pursue community education on the connected health issues, and push religious leaders to encourage more moderate and symbolic forms of the surgery, as was done with male circumcision in my country. I am all for trying to discourage the practice by traditional means like conversation and activism, but trying to use the law as a coercive weapon against minority cultural expression is never a good idea; the social costs of fascism outweigh the social gains.

No. There is nothing alright or acceptable about mutilating children. Would you hold this opinion if your particular minority religion advocated that the head of your penis be cut clean off? I don't think you would. And for all too many, this is the downstream result of circumcision.

 

[Playball40]

You said a 'different kind of surgery'. That's what I was asking about. Sadly, it didn't work for my FIL and he ultimately had to have a penectomy. Not a good outcome for any man.

???

What are you talking about? Just curious. My poor FIL had to have a circumcision done at 80 years old for penile cancer. But it was technically the same procedure.

Yes.

And before anyone starts posting about medical necessity, that's a different kind of surgery.

Your FIL had a life saving surgery that involved removing a diseased body part in order to stop the spread of something that could have killed him. It's comparable to my father's partial amputation of his foot to stop the spread of gangrene.

Circumcision as religious or cultural expression removes a healthy body part. It's unnecessary for the preservation of life. That's a different kind of surgery even though it involves the same body parts. I have no problem with it if the person being circumcised is a consenting adult. I don't think it's right to impose it on a child.

 

[Politesse]

As useless, and dangerous, as trying to outlaw abortion. We should pursue community education on the connected health issues, and push religious leaders to encourage more moderate and symbolic forms of the surgery, as was done with male circumcision in my country. I am all for trying to discourage the practice by traditional means like conversation and activism, but trying to use the law as a coercive weapon against minority cultural expression is never a good idea; the social costs of fascism outweigh the social gains.

No. There is nothing alright or acceptable about mutilating children. Would you hold this opinion if your particular minority religion advocated that the head of your penis be cut clean off? I don't think you would. And for all too many, this is the downstream result of circumcision.

I didn't say I agreed with the practice. My gut emotional reaction to things is not the best guide to social policy, nor yours. If you try to abuse government powers to stamp out every cultural practice you disagree with by force, that power will eventually be wielded against you. History has taught us this uncounted times.

 

[LordKiran]

As useless, and dangerous, as trying to outlaw abortion. We should pursue community education on the connected health issues, and push religious leaders to encourage more moderate and symbolic forms of the surgery, as was done with male circumcision in my country. I am all for trying to discourage the practice by traditional means like conversation and activism, but trying to use the law as a coercive weapon against minority cultural expression is never a good idea; the social costs of fascism outweigh the social gains.

No. There is nothing alright or acceptable about mutilating children. Would you hold this opinion if your particular minority religion advocated that the head of your penis be cut clean off? I don't think you would. And for all too many, this is the downstream result of circumcision.

I didn't say I agreed with the practice. My gut emotional reaction to things is not the best guide to social policy, nor yours. If you try to abuse government powers to stamp out every cultural practice you disagree with by force, that power will eventually be wielded against you. History has taught us this uncounted times.

Its not about what one person disagrees with morally (Though that definitely applies to me.) Its about what is and is not in accordance with the basic principles upon which our society is based. mutilating someone's physiology for religious purposes without their knowledge or consent is a violation of their basic rights.

 

[Underseer]

Are we equating female genital mutilation with circumcision again?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have a hard time picturing it being done without the caretaker(s) knowing about it.

If it happens and they don't report it, they're charged.

Who do we consider a caretaker? Is Lucy who sometimes watches the neighbor boy for an evening a caretaker? I think caretakers should be encouraged to report it but charged? I'm not convinced that would be an ultimately positive outcome.

No, I mean long term caretakers. Generally that would be the parents but I didn't want to say "parents" because others could be in the role.

 

[LordKiran]

Are we equating female genital mutilation with circumcision again?

Why not? They're both forms of mutilation, taking the tip of your pinky off rather than the whole digit is probably not as bad but that doesn't mean you'd consent to either.