Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Female genital mutilation parties being held in UK, MPs told

 

The cutting of girls at female genital mutilation "parties" is still going on in Britain and not just taking place abroad, healthcare experts have told MPs.The Commons home affairs select committee has heard that "cutters" – often older women – are flown into Britain for the events, at which as many as a dozen girls may be operated on.Janet Fyle, of the Royal College of Midwives, said that by the time the authorities could be alerted, the cutter would have left. "By the time the girls are cut, the woman 'cutter' is on her flight back to the country she came from. We can't go after the cutter. We don't know who she or he is. The parents have to be held responsible," she said.Professor Janice Rymer, of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, shared Fyle's belief that FGM was happening in Britain. Asked about its scale, she said: "We have no idea. We have no data but I am sure it is happening in this country."The MPs also heard evidence that 75 to 80 women were undergoing FGM reversal operations in Britain each year.

 

  • 1 year later...
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

You can't expect slightly more savage people to listen to slightly less savage people tell them to stop be so savage.

 

Make circumcision illegal, and then at least we'll have a moral leg to stand on.

Posted

Make circumcision illegal, and then at least we'll have a moral leg to stand on.

If use force to stop a doctor from mutilating a baby, you would be convicted of assault. I don't think turning to the State for a solution is effective, rational, or moral.

Posted

If use force to stop a doctor from mutilating a baby, you would be convicted of assault. I don't think turning to the State for a solution is effective, rational, or moral.

 

In that case I hope you wouldn't turn to the state to seek justice should your wife ever be raped.

Posted

In that case I hope you wouldn't turn to the state to seek justice should your wife ever be raped.

This is an appeal to emotion, not an argument.

 

This deflects attention away from what we were talking about and onto me.

 

This neither acknowledges nor addresses the logical flaw I pointed out.

 

This compares prior restraint to legitimate justice.

 

You had said that we should initiate the use of force to be moral. This is an objective claim which is false as it is self-contradictory. When you make an objective claim, you are also claiming there there is such a thing as truth, such a thing as falsehood, and that truth is preferable to falsehood. I pointed out that you were not adhering to the very standard you put forth. Do you reject your own capacity for error? Are you able to identify why you experience an emotional attachment to the falsehood you put forth?

 

Assault is already illegal. Which doesn't address the threat of assault that prior restraint is. Natural law already tells us that assault cannot be universalized. So yes, I don't think that turning to the State for a solution is effective, rational, or moral.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.