SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
New legislation signed into law by Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder on Tuesday makes female genital mutilation a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. The laws apply both to doctors who conduct the procedure and parents who transport a child to undergo it. "Those who commit these horrendous crimes should be held accountable for their actions, and these bills stiffen the penalties for offenders while providing additional support to victims," Gov. Snyder said in a statement. "This legislation is an important step toward eliminating this despicable practice in Michigan while empowering victims to find healing and justice."
The governor also signed a bill allowing for a health professional's license or registration to be revoked if he or she is convicted of female genital mutilation.
Michigan is the 26th state to ban the practice; the state laws go into effect in October. The practice was banned in the United States in 1996, but Michigan's laws impose harsher penalties than the federal law. The package of bills comes amid the federal criminal trial of an emergency room doctor in Michigan, Jumana Nagarwala, charged with performing the procedure on multiple girls at a clinic in suburban Detroit. The Department of Justice says it believes the case is the first to be brought under the federal law. Another doctor and his wife are also charged in the case, the AP reports.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @09:14PM (1 child)
They're trying to rationalize mutilating someone's genitals because they might behave unwisely (i.e. be careless when having sex, fail to practice proper hygiene, etc.) in the future, and that is totally unjust. The differences between genital mutilation and vaccinations are clear; one alters your body in a very visible way and one does not; one protects you against diseases that are nearly unavoidable and the other (if it protects you from diseases at all) merely decreases your chances of getting diseases that can be avoided by avoiding certain behaviors. The kinds of diseases that MGM may protect you from to some extent are not airborne or any other such thing. All the supposed benefits of MGM can be had in other ways that don't involve preemptively mutilating genitals, which is a violation of someone's fundamental right to control their own body. That the medical world would ever accept this is disgusting.
It's true that the quality of the evidence for vaccinations is much greater than for MGM, but I don't like making the conversation about that, because I would oppose MGM even if I knew absolutely that these benefits existed. That's what it means to support human rights.
There's nothing inherently misogynist about bringing up MGM here. I suspect part of the reason that people always bring it up is because they are frustrated that such a blatant violation of human rights not only still happens in the 21st century but is completely legal and largely accepted/ignored.
It also doesn't matter whether FGM is worse or not, since both should be banned entirely unless there is consent. It's a pointless argument unless someone is actually claiming that MGM is worse.
Maybe MGM should be allowed if there is an imminent medical necessity, but not 'Well, you might do unwise things in the future, so we'll mutilate your genitals now.' Maybe someone will practice safe sex and good hygiene. Maybe someone will be asexual. Maybe someone will be selective about their partners. But proponents of human rights violations don't care about your individual future behavior and would rather preemptively mutilate your genitals.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @10:32PM
Also, from the link:
It actually brings up religious freedom arguments about MGM, and this is a medical site! That is frankly unbelievable, because their arguments should be entirely based on the medical benefits of MGM. Although those arguments are ultimately unconvincing to me, at least they make some amount of sense. Arguing that you have the freedom to surgically alter other people's bodies because of your religion beggars belief. Following that logic, you could do anything (ritual sacrifice, cutting off other people's arms) in the name of your religion and any attempt to stop you would violate your rights. The reality is that one's religion doesn't give one the right to violate other people's rights. The people who use religious-based arguments for genital mutilation would probably engage in special pleading and act as if the logic magically ends with things like genital mutilation, but they are simply being inconsistent. No one should ever bring up religious-based arguments, personal preference arguments, or general parental choice arguments in an attempt to argue for genital mutilation, because they make absolutely no sense.
The most stunning thing to me is that it was actually brought up on a site like that at all.