Wednesday, September 26, 2012

MGM vs. FGM Male and female circumcision

From http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html

This article includes a comparison table of FGM vs. MGM, and quotes among others, these words from anthropologist Kristen Bell:

Ultimately, the message is clear: genital mutilation is gendered. These male and female genital operations are not merely seen to differ in degree, they are seen to differ in kind. Thus, despite the heterogeneous voices speaking out against female circumcision, a common thread unites many: all forms of female genital cutting are seen to constitute a sexual mutilation and violation of bodily integrity, and male genital operations are dismissed as benign.
 And while we are in this topic, from http://www.noharmm.org/anatsim.htm take a look at the anatomical similarities in the development of the male and female genitalia.


From: http://www.drmomma.org/2009/09/history-of-female-circumcision-in.html



From: http://www.drmomma.org/2008/01/mgmfgm-visual-comparison.html

A visual comparison between male and female circumsion:



From: http://www.drmomma.org/2011/04/male-and-female-circumcision.html


From http://www.drmomma.org/2010/04/circumcision-already-illegal.html, Is male infant circumcision already illegal?

I often come across parents who do not agree that circumcision should be illegal. They usually argue by saying it is a parental decision like vaccination, homebirth, etc. Here is my response:

Vaccines cannot be compared to a cosmetic surgery that removes healthy organs for non-therapeutic purposes. This is like comparing apples to oranges. Let's stick with comparing other actions that are considered bodily
modifications of non-consenting minors when contemplating the legality of circumcision.

Piercing is a body modification, but because it does not alter the function of a body part, nor does it remove any tissue or organs, it is generally accepted within reason (earlobes, for example).


Tattooing is much more extreme in that it is permanent, yet it still does not remove any organ or alter the functions of any healthy body parts. However, most people agree that parents should not be able to tattoo their infants or children. In fact, a Florida family was recently charged with cruelty to children for tattooing their 6 kids.


And then you have circumcision - a genital surgery which
does alter the function of the primary sex organ, does remove otherwise healthy tissue and the prepuce organ, does alter appearance forever more and is permanent. If you aren't allowed to tattoo your children, why on earth would you be legally able to remove healthy, functioning tissue from your son's genitals?

....

Circumcision violates our human rights laws, which are designed to protect the bodies of minor children.

Circumcision violates our medical ethics laws that state a doctor can only perform procedures on a minor when there is clear medical need and a more conservative treatment has failed.


Circumcision is not good preventative medicine because amputation is always a last resort to conservative treatments.


Circumcision on babies cannot be considered a good prophylactic measure against sexually transmitted infections.


And last but not least, because baby girls
are protected from even the most minor genital surgery (even a pin prick), circumcision is a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution of the United States which states that, "all persons shall receive equal protection under the law" regardless of sex.

Case closed, circumcision is technically already illegal. The question is not then whether or not it is legal to circumcise a child - we have already established that the male foreskin and its removal exists outside our legal and medical norms. The real question is, when will our government recognize that they have failed to apply the law accordingly and, in doing so, they have failed to protect our most innocent and most fragile of citizens?

No comments:

Post a Comment