In the news

You are reading a single comment by @hugo7 and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.

•

Dammit in reply to @Clockwise

I think it's one of them things where a ban would only put what is a minority group at further risk. I'm not a fan of the idea and would prefer religions didn't meddle but where they are this is one of the instances where people will seek illegal means and it's better having them do it in a safe way with good support and facilities open to them.

You would extend this (logically) to Female Genital Mutilation as well?

•

hugo7 in reply to @Dammit

You would extend this (logically) to Female Genital Mutilation as well?

Appreciate that you were countering Clockwise's point of having things done safely, but FGM is very different in it's purpose and consequences.

Although there are religious reasons for male circumcision it's interesting how cultural it is. In the US it's pretty common regardless of faith. It's a good eg of where humans often just do things "because".

Not sure if this factored into anyone else's view, but when I read the story in the thread I assumed the policy was proposed by a right wing party, and was slightly uneasy. Then when I read it had been proposed by the Progressive Party I felt more comfortable, as I felt it seemed less likely to be routed in prejudiced.... although in a plot twist the Progressive Party is apparently centre-right.

•

NotThamesWater in reply to @hugo7

FGM is very different in it's purpose and consequences.

Is it though? I mean, unless you're going to make a distinction between the various types of mutilation, from removal of the prepuce all the way to clitoradectomy & infibulation, then as an argument, it's weak.

About

Avatar for hugo7 @hugo7 started