Religious defense planned in landmark Detroit genital mutilation case

[rangerrebew]

Religious defense planned in landmark Detroit genital mutilation case
Tresa Baldas , Detroit Free Press Published 11:25 p.m. ET May 20, 2017 | Updated 9:42 a.m. ET May 21, 2017
What is female genital mutilation?
 

Millions of little girls and young women have been subjected to a painful rite of passage that involves cutting their genitals — often without anesthesia — for centuries in parts of Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Detroit Free Press
Lawyers plan to claim genital cutting is allowed as a religious right. But legal experts say the First Amendment doesn't bend that far.
 

On paper, the law seems clear: Cutting any part of a young girl's genitalia is illegal — and no custom or ritual can be used to justify it.

The law has been on the books for 21 years, unchallenged.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/2017/05/21/female-genital-mutilation-religious-freedom/319911001/

[rangerrebew]

  But legal experts say the First Amendment doesn't bend that far.
 

The First Amendment may not "bend that far" but as we have found, courts do.

[austingirl]

Barbaric practice by barbarians.

[Jazzhead]

Barbaric practice by barbarians.

No - a barbaric practice by the followers of religion .   Genital mutilation of young children is commonly practiced even today by Christians and Jews.   How is circumcision any different than female genital mutilation, other than that the former practice is particularly offensive to modern feminist sensibilities?     

Plenty of religious conservatives decry the power of the state to dictate how they raise their children.   The issue is one of parental rights -  how far can parents go to force their children to follow religious practices and adopt religious values,  even when the state considers those practices and values damaging to children?    When does religious custom and practice cross the line into state-proscribed "barbarism"?   Many here are fond of slippery slope arguments -  what would be your reaction to a state law banning the practice of circumcision, or requiring children to be vaccinated even in the face of religious objection?   

[driftdiver]

No - a barbaric practice by the followers of religion .   Genital mutilation of young children is commonly practiced even today by Christians and Jews.   How is circumcision any different than female genital mutilation, other than that the former practice is particularly offensive to modern feminist sensibilities?     

Plenty of religious conservatives decry the power of the state to dictate how they raise their children.   The issue is one of parental rights -  how far can parents go to force their children to follow religious practices and adopt religious values,  even when the state considers those practices and values damaging to children?    When does religious custom and practice cross the line into state-proscribed "barbarism"?   Many here are fond of slippery slope arguments -  what would be your reaction to a state law banning the practice of circumcision, or requiring children to be vaccinated even in the face of religious objection?   

@Jazzhead
How is " circumcision any different than female genital mutilation" you asked.   Is that a real question.    Circumcision involves trimming the foreskin.   While painful it does not limit any future action or function for males.   In fact the removal is healthy because it greatly reduces the chances for infection and transmission of diseases.

However the female genital mutilation involves removal of the girls clitoris.   In Africa and the middle east its commonly done with a rusty razor blade or piece of broken glass.   Their stated purpose is to reduce the girls desire for sex later in life to make her more controllable.  It removes function from the girl and harms her.   That you can ask such a question is astounding.

[austingirl]

@Jazzhead
How is " circumcision any different than female genital mutilation" you asked.   Is that a real question.    Circumcision involves trimming the foreskin.   While painful it does not limit any future action or function for males.   In fact the removal is healthy because it greatly reduces the chances for infection and transmission of diseases.

However the female genital mutilation involves removal of the girls clitoris.   In Africa and the middle east its commonly done with a rusty razor blade or piece of broken glass.   Their stated purpose is to reduce the girls desire for sex later in life to make her more controllable.  It removes function from the girl and harms her.   That you can ask such a question is astounding.

Bingo!

[Sanguine]

No - a barbaric practice by the followers of religion .   Genital mutilation of young children is commonly practiced even today by Christians and Jews.   How is circumcision any different than female genital mutilation, other than that the former practice is particularly offensive to modern feminist sensibilities?     

Plenty of religious conservatives decry the power of the state to dictate how they raise their children.   The issue is one of parental rights -  how far can parents go to force their children to follow religious practices and adopt religious values,  even when the state considers those practices and values damaging to children?    When does religious custom and practice cross the line into state-proscribed "barbarism"?   Many here are fond of slippery slope arguments -  what would be your reaction to a state law banning the practice of circumcision, or requiring children to be vaccinated even in the face of religious objection?   

Jazz, that's just a bizarre argument.

[Jazzhead]

I know what female genital mutilation is.  It's abominable.   But it is deliberate genital mutilation just as surely as circumcision is - barbarism practiced on a child without his or her consent in the name of religion.
 

[Jazzhead]

Jazz, that's just a bizarre argument.

Why?   I was responding to a post calling the practice "barbarism practiced by barbarians".    It's barbaric, to be sure -  but Muslims are no more "barbarians" than are Christian and Jewish parents who force newborns to undergo circumcision.   If one is going to brand the practitioners of faith as "barbarians", then don't limit the label to Muslims.   We mutilate our babies too.     

[thackney]

I know what female genital mutilation is.  It's abominable.   But it is deliberate genital mutilation just as surely as circumcision is - barbarism practiced on a child without his or her consent in the name of religion.

You really equate these?  FGM is done to reduce the natural desire for sex.  Even the CDC sees benefit for male circumcision.  They are NOT the same.

https://www.cdc.gov/healthcommunication/toolstemplates/entertainmented/tips/hivcircumcision.html

Importantly, male circumcision can be protective against HIV transmission through sexual intercourse. Circumcision significantly reduces a man's risk of contracting HIV from an HIV-positive woman during penile-vaginal sex, as shown by several types of research. A review of 28 studies of male circumcision, as it is related to heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa, showed that the relative risk for becoming infected with HIV was 44% lower in circumcised men. In addition, male circumcision has been associated with protection against other sexually transmitted infections such as syphilis and chancroid.

- - - - - - - -

https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/guidelines/domestic/general/discussion/female-genital-cutting.html

- - - - - - - -

http://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/13545/cdc_13545_DS1.pdf

Lack of male circumcision has also been associated with sexually transmitted genital ulcer disease and chlamydia, infant urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men.

[austingirl]

You really equate these?  FGM is done to reduce the natural desire for sex.  Even the CDC sees benefit for male circumcision.  They are NOT the same.

https://www.cdc.gov/healthcommunication/toolstemplates/entertainmented/tips/hivcircumcision.html

Importantly, male circumcision can be protective against HIV transmission through sexual intercourse. Circumcision significantly reduces a man's risk of contracting HIV from an HIV-positive woman during penile-vaginal sex, as shown by several types of research. A review of 28 studies of male circumcision, as it is related to heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa, showed that the relative risk for becoming infected with HIV was 44% lower in circumcised men. In addition, male circumcision has been associated with protection against other sexually transmitted infections such as syphilis and chancroid.

- - - - - - - -

https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/guidelines/domestic/general/discussion/female-genital-cutting.html

- - - - - - - -

http://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/13545/cdc_13545_DS1.pdf

Lack of male circumcision has also been associated with sexually transmitted genital ulcer disease and chlamydia, infant urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men.

Great post!