Re: female circumcision-Arguing at cross-purposes
wnn6850@vaxa.isc.rit.edu
Sat, 26 Nov 1994 21:10:26 GMT
In article <CKwGRIUV.fmljbf@flashmag.flashmag.com>, waltervj@flashmag.com (Walter Vose Jeffries) writes:
>> What basic human right laws are you referring to ?
>> I thought laws were define by leaders for their fellow
>> people according to what is deemed morally right at the moment.
>
>By your logic, slavery is acceptable, as well as branding, torture
>and other actions which are all violations of basic human rights.
>Do you really mean that or are you just speaking without thinking.
>
Nop ! I didn't just jump on the key board. offcourse slavery was
wrong however that was caused by greedy leaders. Thats is why we are still
having problems today. If this basic human rights were so basic why did
the western society wait till so long to acknowledge them ?
>> Plus you seemed to be ignoring something, this so call
>> mutilations are not meant to be degrading or serve as punishment.
>
>Plus you are ignorant of the origins of circumcision. It was used
>as a punishment for boys for masturbating in England
>and in the USA. Then people rationalized it as a good thing to
>do routinely to stop masturbation. Later other rationalizations
>were given but in all cases it is a mutilation (check the dictionary
>for the meaning if you are so unclear.) The medical authorities
>throughout the world recognize routine circumcision as having
>now medical benefit and it has significant medical risks including
>disfigurement or amputation of the penis, infection and even death.
>
I think that maybe you should go and recheck your facts.
Circumcision didn't originate in England nor the usa.
It's been in england for just a relatively short time.
If the english decided
to use it as a punishment, it doesn't suprise me. They used just
about everything else at one time or another for their benefit.
However some Africans and the Hebrews have been doing it for thousands
of yrs and it wasn't meant to be a punishment.
wb
>Female 'circumcision' (removal of the clitoral hood to
>infibulation) is even worse and carries a much higher risk
>of complications and possibility of death. Female
>circumcision is meant to degrade women by lessening their
>sexual desire and to ensure chasity (punish before it
>happens).
The chasity part probably, but the punish part I seriously doubt it.
Especially since most of these societies practised both female and male
circumcision unless you happen to be insinuating that all this cultures
are nothing but barbarians bent on hurting their own kind.
.
>. In many cultures where female circumcision is
>practiced, the clitoris and labia are viewed dirty and male
>like and thus must be amputated to prevent competition with
>the husband's penis. Is that your view of things?
I'll not quite put it that way. However if you view it like that
what is male circumcision meant to do according to you?.
>
>Both are mutilations. Neither works for what it is supposed to
>do. Both should be banned. Children should be allowed to grow
>up and decide for themselves if they want to amputate various
>parts of their bodies. Routine circumcision is a violation of
>their rights and their bodies.
>
Again fundamental dissagreement. By saying this, you are putting
yourself as judge of other people's actions and morality. Apart
from England and the U.S where it was meant to "punish masturbation"
, it may as well be doing what it was meant for in other cultures.
in African cultures, it was meant to dissipate sexual ambiguities.
Let the men be men and the women be women. As you can find, there
is very little sexual ambiguities(gays, lesbians) among the cultures
that practise circumcision.
seems to be wo
>> If we are to go by what you suggest, then maybe we should just
>> leave the omblical cod on small babies untill they grow up
>> to decide for themselves. Sounds rediculous doesn't it.
>
>Yes, it is rediculous and obviously your understanding of anatomy
>and physiology is abysmal. If you left the umbilical cord on babies,
>it would dry up and fall of of it's own accord. Your ignorance
>may be the source of your problem.
>
Yes mr.r wiseman how long will this take since you seem to know everything ?.
So why should we bother cutting if off since it'll fall off on it's own
accord ?. Anyway you are taking my words out of context.
>> just my 2cents
>
>And certainly not worth the money you paid for it...
>Get an education. It will help you not look
>like such an idiot.
Obviously the lord has spoken !
I wonder why you find it neccesary to degrade my person rather
than concerntrating on the issue at hand ?
Good day to you
Njuh
|