FGM: 1,026 new cases in 3 month in the UK

[Gilrandir]

I doubt it. FGM is the equal of cutting off the glans of the penis. It pretty much removes the enjoyment of sex from the woman with the argument that it will make them less likely to cheat.

And there's the difference, circumsation of the penis makes sense given the medical conditions at the time, genital mutilation of a vagina is sexual abuse, that is something that is just incredibly cruel.

I said why the two are similar. I will repeat if someone forgot: 1) done against the will of the victim, 2) has no MEDICAL justification, 3) based on religious prejudices.
Put in more white PR for FGM and black PR for circumcision and you will find it difficult to emotionally counterpose them.

That could be said about any type of body modification like ear gauges or body piercings.

See above for the difference. The ones mentioned by you don't stem from any religious tenets (except the pagan ones, perhaps, - but I doubt if those who pierce themselves realize that) and they are done at one's free choice.

[rory_20_uk]

Circumcision often is done for medical reasons and regardless of the reason reduces the risk of some specific types of cancer as well as the risk of disease transmission. Yes, there findings are incidental to the original reasons.

Female genital mutilation has no such benefits and has a significant risk of mortality and morbidity.

[Gilrandir]

Circumcision often is done for medical reasons and regardless of the reason reduces the risk of some specific types of cancer as well as the risk of disease transmission. Yes, there findings are incidental to the original reasons.

Female genital mutilation has no such benefits and has a significant risk of mortality and morbidity.

Has any research ever tried to find benefits of FGM and any risks it might reduce? I don't think so.

Motrality and morbidity, you say? Make some circumcisions under the sanitary conditions similar to those under which FGM is often made and we may not notice the difference.

Like I said - add some black PR to circumcision - or run a campaign against it in major media - and you will not know the idea in a couple of years.

[Montmorency]

You're being really thick lately, huh?

Even if the procedures were performed under professional medical conditions and standards, there would always be an increased risk of chronic pain and vaginal infection or UTI, more so the more tissue is removed.

[rory_20_uk]

Has any research ever tried to find benefits of FGM and any risks it might reduce? I don't think so.

Motrality and morbidity, you say? Make some circumcisions under the sanitary conditions similar to those under which FGM is often made and we may not notice the difference.

Like I said - add some black PR to circumcision - or run a campaign against it in major media - and you will not know the idea in a couple of years.

Oh dear - a simple Google search would have sufficed... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...2072920000237X

Note the article is regarding childbirth - so this assumes that it took place in a lovely sanitary conditions and there were no complications.

So... nothing to do whatsoever with PR and to do with hard, scientific fact. I've no idea why you continue to think the two are in any way similar.

[Gilrandir]

Oh dear - a simple Google search would have sufficed... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...2072920000237X

Note the article is regarding childbirth - so this assumes that it took place in a lovely sanitary conditions and there were no complications.

All I could read from the linked source was an abstract. Communication at this forum has taught me not to be overtrustful, especially if
1) no figures confirmed by any research are provided;
2) the report comes from a culturally alien and therefore biased source.
Moreover, I didn't claim FGM was good. My claim was that it is bad, as well as circumcision. You haven't provided any sources concerning the latter.What if I do, like this:
https://www.yourlifechoices.com.au/h...le-dysfunction
@Montmorency: so many thick people are around, huh?

So... nothing to do whatsoever with PR and to do with hard, scientific fact. I've no idea why you continue to think the two are in any way similar.

I gave another scientific fact. Get some spindoctors to work on it and we'll see in a couple of years.

As to similarities, twice now have I given my reasons why I believe so. No one has refuted any of them. In fact, my opponents didn't dispute a single point I offered; all their arguments boiled down to "Oh, come on! The first mutilation is a savage habit of uncouth infidels/pagans, the second mutilation is a salubrious procedure hallowed by its belonging to [which is widely understood as] our culture." If you go beyond blunt rejection, I will consider the reasons forwarded. If you keep rolling like you did, well, carry on. Calling the dissidents "thick" is certainly the best way to prove your point.

Perhaps anyone would second amputating the appendix soon after a baby is born - it will prevent him from getting appendicitis later and who needs that blindgut anyway? People do perfectly well without it. Or glands - no dratted quinsy in future? About ten years ago my Mum had her gall bladder removed. And she is doing fine, considering. Let's cut it out at the age of three, say. Prevents some nasty cholecystitis in years to come. Angelina Jolie was right after all - chop off those boobs - they are a vague menace even now, who knows one day they may cause some trouble.

[Montmorency]

As to

similarities, twice now have I given my reasons why I believe so. No one has refuted any of them. In fact, my opponents didn't dispute a single point I offered; all their arguments boiled down to "Oh, come on! The first mutilation is a savage habit of uncouth infidels/pagans, the second mutilation is a salubrious procedure hallowed by its belonging to [which is widely understood as] our culture." If you go beyond blunt rejection, I will consider the reasons forwarded. If you keep rolling like you did, well, carry on. Calling the dissidents "thick" is certainly the best way to prove your point.

Gee, maybe try actually reading the posts that refute your premises?