Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 2, 2019 16:50:01 GMT
I have numbered what I actually say in order to help you maintain focus.
1 There are people in the world who make cuts to the human body for various purposes; medicinal, practical or cosmetic.
2 Not everyone agrees the all cuts are necessary or beneficial, and some are thought to be harmful.
3 FilmFlaneur believes that making the harmful cuts is the result of religion.
4 Quite well established religions all over the modern world disagree with FilmFlaneur and have no such practice, nor can such practice be found to be stipulated in official documents.
5 Indeed only [my emphasis] very poor societies with little if any connection to any religion engage in the sort of cutting FilmFlaneur finds objectionable.
2 Not everyone agrees the all cuts are necessary or beneficial, and some are thought to be harmful.
3 FilmFlaneur believes that making the harmful cuts is the result of religion.
4 Quite well established religions all over the modern world disagree with FilmFlaneur and have no such practice, nor can such practice be found to be stipulated in official documents.
5 Indeed only [my emphasis] very poor societies with little if any connection to any religion engage in the sort of cutting FilmFlaneur finds objectionable.
3. Don't tell me what I believe. I have said, still say, and indeed have shown, that FGM and MGM is often justified by religion, cultural reasons and, less frequently for 'health reasons'. The emphasis purely on religion alone is all your own and distorts the picture to suit your own purposes. Religious justification is common but not the only reason.
4. A religious justification is not the same as religious requirement, but as we know especially from the reasons for much circumcision, sometimes the two occur at the same time. But I have told you this already.
5. I think MGM ought to be looked at as I find it equally objectionable (as I said in my first comment). Religious (and non-religious) circumcision is common in some predominantly richer Christian countries such as the United States, Canada, South Korea, then also Israel as well as elsewhere. So it is not true that MGM is found "only" in very poor countries, and you are wrong. Neither, too is FGM "only found" in very poor countries (although more common there) since for instance it has be found necessary to make it illegal in the UK. Statistics may be inexact but it exists, so you are wrong here as well. Says the EU Commission:
There is no reliable and comparable data on the prevalence of FGM in Europe. It is estimated, however, that hundreds of thousands of women living in Europe have been subjected to genital mutilation and thousands more girls are at risk. Most women and girls originating from countries in which the practice of FGM is widespread live in the following EU countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Spain, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom. ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/gender-equality/gender-based-violence/eliminating-female-genital-mutilation_en
Then in the USA:
WHAT IS THE PREVALENCE OF FGM IN THE U.S.?
More detailed statistics on FGM are needed. In January 2016, in response to advocacy by Equality Now, Safe Hands for Girls, and other civil society partners, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a study on the number of women and girls in the U.S. who are at risk of or have been subjected to FGM. According to it, the number is estimated to be 513,000, more than three times higher than an earlier estimate based on 1990 data. www.equalitynow.org/fgm_in_the_us_learn_more
More detailed statistics on FGM are needed. In January 2016, in response to advocacy by Equality Now, Safe Hands for Girls, and other civil society partners, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a study on the number of women and girls in the U.S. who are at risk of or have been subjected to FGM. According to it, the number is estimated to be 513,000, more than three times higher than an earlier estimate based on 1990 data. www.equalitynow.org/fgm_in_the_us_learn_more
But despite your diversion, the fact is wherever it is found non-consensual GM is equally objectionable. The implication that bad things matter less since they are more common among the poor and underdeveloped is peculiar, ultimately immoral and I suspect all your own.
But now since I have corrected what you actually say, again, with links. I can't really do any more. See you on the next thread.