Child Genital Mutilation

[Hots on 10]

On ‎08‎/‎02‎/‎2019 at 20:35, Top Cats Hat said:

Does this include parents and relatives who get their kids' ears pierced when they are babies?

The amount of people that do this is negligible really, it is no way common place, and it is not associated with a specific culture.

 

You're attempt at glossing over FGM by bringing up piercing babies ears is very revealing.

[Halibut 12]

14 hours ago, Hots on said:

The amount of people that do this is negligible really, it is no way common place, and it is not associated with a specific culture.

 

You're attempt at glossing over FGM by bringing up piercing babies ears is very revealing.

Wrong on both counts (as a really easy bit of research would have shown you, had you been bothered) and your attempt to portray TCH's point as an attempt to gloss over FGM are frankly ridiculous.

5 minutes ago, Halibut said:

 

 

Edited February 14, 2019 by Halibut

[woodview 10]

43 minutes ago, Halibut said:

Wrong on both counts (as a really easy bit of research would have shown you, had you been bothered) and your attempt to portray TCH's point as an attempt to gloss over FGM are frankly ridiculous.

 

No it's not. Comparing ear piercing and FGM is stomach turning, at the dismissive attitude to FGM. Disgraceful comment.

[Halibut 12]

26 minutes ago, woodview said:

No it's not. Comparing ear piercing and FGM is stomach turning, at the dismissive attitude to FGM. Disgraceful comment.

I can't speak for Top Cat's Hat, but I suspect your characterisation of his attitude to FGM as 'dismissive' is grossly disingenuous.

As for your comment re comparing FGM and ear piercing of babies - whether you like it or not they are both medically unnecessary surgical procedures carried out on children without their consent.

[woodview 10]

30 minutes ago, Halibut said:

I can't speak for Top Cat's Hat, but I suspect your characterisation of his attitude to FGM as 'dismissive' is grossly disingenuous.

As for your comment re comparing FGM and ear piercing of babies - whether you like it or not they are both medically unnecessary surgical procedures carried out on children without their consent.

They are both unnecessary, but are so far related from each other, including them in a discussion about FGM is beyond disingenuous. Why even bother linking them, apart from achieving its objective of diverting the discussion onto more trivial subjects and semantics, a typical tactic with some.

[taxman 12]

First ever conviction in the UK today.

 

Which is great...but reading the report it seems the parents were doing it for some sort of bizarre witchcraft thing and left evidence all over their house. What about the thousands (hundreds of thousands?) who aren't so bonkers but do it with much more guile and get away with it?

[cressida 1,551]

Without consent is the issue with me,  also babies are put into TV advertisements but at least it's not 'body invasive' as is FGM

[danot 10]

You can't gain the consent of a baby. Every action, every decision we make is done without their consent. Washing their body is invasive if we're comparing it with our own body. 

Edited March 13, 2019 by danot

[Cyclone 10]

On 14/02/2019 at 10:17, Halibut said:

I can't speak for Top Cat's Hat, but I suspect your characterisation of his attitude to FGM as 'dismissive' is grossly disingenuous.

As for your comment re comparing FGM and ear piercing of babies - whether you like it or not they are both medically unnecessary surgical procedures carried out on children without their consent.

One is permanent and has life altering consequences and the other is pin hole in the ear which will heal without a mark if left for a few weeks.

[K1Machine 10]

11 minutes ago, danot said:

You can't gain the consent of a baby. Every action, every decision we make is done without their consent. Washing their body is invasive if we're comparing it with our own body. 

Some people do not agree..

(Sorry its on Fox but its the only video I can find after a quick search that is not a profanity laden "reaction" video)

 

[Cyclone 10]

12 minutes ago, danot said:

You can't gain the consent of a baby. Every action, every decision we make is done without their consent. Washing their body is invasive if we're comparing it with our own body. 

You think that washing a baby is invasive in the same way that permanent, life altering, unnecessary surgical procedures are?

On 08/03/2019 at 18:12, taxman said:

First ever conviction in the UK today.

 

Which is great...but reading the report it seems the parents were doing it for some sort of bizarre witchcraft thing and left evidence all over their house. What about the thousands (hundreds of thousands?) who aren't so bonkers but do it with much more guile and get away with it?

What about them?

The authorities can only take action if there's some evidence to support them doing so...  It's been made illegal, it's prosecuted when it can be, it's investigated when it can be, is there more that can be done?

[danot 10]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

You think that washing a baby is invasive in the same way that permanent, life altering, unnecessary surgical procedures are?

Absolutely not.  And I haven't made any kind of comparison that would lead to you think I might.   I just think the issue of 'not having a baby's consent' is redundant. 

 

And just for the record, I'm totally against FGM.

Edited March 13, 2019 by danot