1. Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision

Comment #116367 by jkr87 on January 26, 2008 at 10:25 am

I think the word mutilation is rather apt. It's removing a functional and useful part of the body, not merely "modifying" it for absolutely medical reasons. There's a big difference between getting an earring and have an earlobe cut off. Mutilation simply is "to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of." This practice is also not merely an aesthetic procedure, but removes functional tissue, and if it were aesthetic, then that still doesn't give someone the right to remove a body part from someone else.
Aesthetics doesn't justify amputation, and the very fact, as the article states, that the procedure is rarely done on older people, is consistent with it being a generally unnecessary medical procedure.

Of course, people can grow up taking a number of practices or situations for granted, but when one steps out of that, its only then that one realizes how wrong it really is. All you have to do is change the example slightly, and think about whether parents have a right to have an ear cut off or a finger, or a girl's mammary glands so she has a reduced risk of breast cancer. That would all be considered mutilation, and we could have been living in a society that chose one of those as the norm, but that's merely arbitrary. (But I suppose it's easier though, to write off someone else's sexual feelings as being less important than losing a finger.) For people who wake up one day and realize they had a significant part of the most personal part of their body removed without their consent, it's perfectly understandable that they would react very strongly about it. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to have parts of your body cut off because someone else didnt like them. They have a basic experience of being mutilated and violated. Just because other people are fine with the practice because they are brought up to tolerate it, doesnt change the fact that for those who realize it, they had something forcibly amputated. But some people dont understand that and cant understand why so many are opposed to the practice. But for some reason, we dont seem to find there is something very seriously wrong with people who are so passionate about getting parts of SOMEONE ELSE's genitals cut off, especially if it's not medically necessary.

The practice of female genital mutilation is also done for cultural reasons and tradition, and getting it done is taken VERY seriously in many parts of the world, far more seriously than MGM is taken in North America. There are also degrees of FGM. But in many countries, even making so much as a pinprick on a girl is illegal. The only way one can oppose FGM and also tolerate MGM is if one would allow a similar amount of tissue removal in both cases. If boys don't have a right not to have 1/2-2/3 of their organ's (functional and erogenous) skin removed then it is unprincipled, to say the least, to suggest that girls do have a right not to have ANY genital tissue removed. Saying you're okay with MGM means you're also okay with a similar procedure being done on girls.
Either people have a right to their bodies or they dont.

2. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96679 by jkr87 on December 10, 2007 at 8:22 pm

pyota,
What is removed serves a function in normal sexual practice and is also erogenous. It is not like a cavity, which is damage to a tooth. Every body part is a liability and faces potential problems. One would only cut something off without a second thought if it were of no value whatsoever, which is not the case with genital mutilation.

It goes without saying that if one removes a part of the body, one will not experience problems with it. The point is that this seems to be the only area where people attempt to preemptively and universally remove a functional part of the most sensitive and personal part of a person's body in order to avoid the problems a small number of people will eventually ever have. Ordinarily, for example, if a woman contracts breast cancer, the immediate solution is not to remove the breasts, but only use that as a last resort if deemed absolutely necessary. If one has a problem with a body part, including a tooth, getting rid of it is not the first solution. Science, in every other case, does its best to preserve a person's body. But because someone else's pleasure does not seem as important or crucial as a vital organ, it it easier to write off.

People can be raised and conditioned to view almost any practice as normal. The practice of FGM has stuck around for a reason, and throughout history there have been countless similar examples. It is only when one manages to step outside that that one realizes how abhorrent some things can be. There is very little philosophical difference between MGM and FGM. FGM is outlawed in a number of countries. It is not merely the removal of everything that is forbidden, but even so much as a pinprick on a girl's genitals is illegal. The fact that FGM removes more than MGM is beyond irrelevant. It would still be unacceptable to remove 50, 40, 10 or 5% of a girl's genitals. One simply cannot accept MGM but not FGM. FGM is also a cultural tradition, huge numbers of women do not feel harmed by practice and it often involves "merely" partial removal of erogenous tissues. Such women can have "normal" sex lives. But saying, "well we didn't cut it all off", and "it still somewhat works" is not a proper response. The amount removed in FGM is deemed irrelevant. Cutting off less does not redeem the practice.

The only difference would seem to be a (decreasing) amount of medical support for MGM, but again, this is the only case where one might be willing to remove a healthy, functional, important body part across the board in order to avoid largely treatable problems that occur in a minority of individuals, which were the problems of any other sort, would only be solved by amputation as a last resort.

MGM has a number of physical consequences (although not as bad as the worst form of FGM) many of which are not considered problems, such as scarring, hair growing on the shaft, and a complete different mechanics in sexual practices and drying out of the organ. If an adult balances the costs and (negligible) benefits and chooses to undergo the procedure, they can do so based one the same principle that is supposed to protect children, they have a right to their own body.

What it ultimately boils down to is that cutting off a body is part is the choice of the individual whose body it is, alone. They are the ones who have to live with the consequences. Either a person has a right to his or her body (not cavities, or cancer cells), or they don't.