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: 2) by FatPhil on Friday July 14 2017, @08:11PM (2 children)
So the punishment for this crime should be clear - let the victim perform the same or equivalent operation upon the perpetrator.
A bit boring, I know. I think we need to reality-TV it up a bit. First of all, it has to be live on air, and Ramsey Bolton hosts the show. Spin the wheel to chose which implements are permitted! Of course there would be a scalpel, but why couldn't there also be a chainsaw, a monkey wrench, and a ten-foot pole. Still might be a bit clinical - brainstorm, Phil, brainstorm ... - the "surgeon" has to wear a blindfold, and perform the "operation" using only sound as a guide.
I think we've got a hit!
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @08:54PM
Nah, they just "borrowed" that straight from the Bible,
Leviticus 24:19-21
Credit where credit is due ;) Just follow Leviticus 24:19. Easy.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+24%3A19-21&version=KJV [biblegateway.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @11:04PM
Perhaps you are not aware of this, but male circumcision is typically practiced in Jewish faith communities. As such, the man doing the circumcision will have already been circumcised. (Unless we are talking about a reformed Jewish tradition then, yes, the one doing the circumcision will certainly be a man; can't say for sure about reformed Judaism.) So, in a sense, the "perpetrator" has already paid for his crime. (Eye for an eye and whatnot.)
Just to clear up a bit more of your apparent ignorance, Jews typically do make a bit of a show out of the circumcision. They call the ceremony a bris, if I'm not mistaken. Friends and relatives of the proud parents actually come to watch "the blessed event". As far as I'm aware, Ramsey Bolton--whoever the hell he is--doesn't typically make an appearance though.
Quite. </sarcasm>
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RedBear on Saturday July 15 2017, @04:16AM (2 children)
I am not interested in arguing about the appropriateness of allowing circumcision. I am merely going to point out that the strict medical equivalent of a clitoridectomy, which is frequently the guest of honor at a FGM party, would be the surgical removal of not just the head of the penis but the entire shaft right back to the base and below. Oftentimes the external labia (the "lips") are also crudely removed. It would be difficult to do the equivalent to the male genitalia since that would involve removal of the scrotal skin, which would leave the testes exposed, whereas the ovaries are internal thus allowing the horribly mutilated female to technically still be able to procreate. In the third world FGM is often done in a very amateurish manner with a simple razor blade, leaving horrific scarring and causing major bleeding as well as the possibility of infection and death. The remaining procedure that happens in FGM is the sewing together of the inner labia to simulate a hymen and allow the female to pass the idiotic "virginity tests" which are still alarmingly common in various places. To make up an equivalent for a male it might be like sewing the foreskin closed so that it has to be ripped open in order to successfully have intercourse.
A surprising number of men routinely go to doctors today as adults in developed countries to get circumcised, or to have the small line of connective tissue just below the head of the penis severed so that it no longer causes the head of the penis to bend down awkwardly when having an erection, which is a problem for some men. These things are considered very minor surgeries that almost never cause any functional issue. Some cultures *cough*Japan*cough* where circumcision is unusual also have widespread phobic obsessions about things like "phimosis", which is a mythical problem regarding the inability to retract the foreskin over the head of the penis, along with the possibility of painful sex due to the tightness of the foreskin. Neither of these things are a problem in practice, of course. Nevertheless the fear of it is quite common and can be alleviated via adult circumcision.
It may in fact be quite righteous to argue that children should not be circumcised or otherwise modified in any way. But you should always expect to get pushback and ridicule if you attempt to directly compare the horrors of FGM with simple male circumcision. Because they are only comparable in a very superficial, technical way. No rational person should expect sympathy for such a comparison unless you can point to a culture that is completely removing boys' genitalia. That procedure exists historically, but the products of such procedures were no longer considered men since they couldn't reproduce, which was often the main point of the procedure. They were called eunuchs. It varied by country or culture whether only the testes or both the testes and penis were removed to create a eunuch. If you can point to a boy who has been turned into a eunuch, that is the true male equivalent of FGM (combined with sterilization if the testes were removed). The removal of a flap of skin which all known studies indicate results in a fully functional and satisfying sex life, exactly the same as uncircumcised males, is not in the same ballpark emotionally as what happens in FGM. Approximately the same percentage of medical problems exist among the male population caused by being circumcised as the problems caused by being uncircumcised. It's a wash either way. Doctors decades ago honestly felt like they had good medical reasons to recommend circumcision, and there is no generation of tens of millions of men unable to enjoy sex because of circumcision. Comparing the two is insulting to those who have gone through any form of FGM.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15 2017, @07:20AM
"phimosis", which is a mythical problem
Wrong. [nih.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15 2017, @05:51PM
Don't know the exact figures, but there are cases where the MGM practioner screwed up, and they then chopped the rest off and tried to turn a little boy into a little girl. Surprisingly, it did not usually end well.