who should prevail tribal custom or american law??

Question

an alanta father accused of circumcising his 2yr old daughter with sicssors is focusing attention on an ancient african parctice that experts say is slowly becoming more common in the US as immigrants communities grow. a 31yr old immigrant from ethiopia, is charged with aggrevated battery and cruelty to children. human rights observed said they belive this is the first criminal case in the US involving the5,000yr old practice. prosecutors say adem used scissors to remove his daughter's clitoris in their apartment. the child's mother said she did not discover it until more than a 1yr later. he say he wanted to perserve her virginity. the girl now 7yrs old testified that daddy cut her on her privite part. the adems divorced.if he is convivted he could get more than 40yrs in prision. THE US STATE DEPARTMENT ESTIMATES THAT UP TO130 MIL WOMEN HAD UNDERGONE CIRCUMCISION WORLDWIDE AS 2001.KINIVES, RAZORS OR EVEN SHARP STONES ARE USUALLY USED.

Answer 1

Regardless of the (justifiable) law, it is an unconscionably barbaric practice with no redeeming benefits whatsoever that should be banned from any human society.

Answer 2

True, neither is inherently good, but male circumcision is generally viewed as "less destructive" than female circumcision. In male circumcision the foreskin of the penis is removed so the glans is always exposed.

Female circumcision has a much larger range. In its "least invasive" forms it involves simply piercing or remove the clitoral hood (basically the same thing as the male foreskin). However, female circumcision as it's extreme removes the entire clitoris and I think parts of the labia and something weird with the vagina. This is like removing a part of a guy's penis and then some. Clearly, this IS more destructive than any male circumcision.

All the above, male and female, reduce sexual sensitivity and pleasure, and all are inherently unnecessary. However, female circumcision in its most extreme versions can be very dangerous (more dangerous than male circumcision) and can manifest later in life during childbirth.

The ironic thing is that the arguments against female circumcision is usually not applied to male circumcision. There is a double-standard that shouldn't exist. Some of the fundamental arguments against female circumcision are the child's decision, the child's genital integrity, and the child's ownership of her own body. Why does neither of these apply to males? This is what most bothers me. It isn't fair to say that female circumcision is "worse" than male circumcision, because that's a given. But that doesn't decrease the fact that male circumcision violates those three arguments as well, just for males instead.

It isn't logical to say that male circumcision "may have some benefits" because there are actually some articles, very few, that state that "properly done" female circumcision may confer some health benefits. Clearly most people automatically disregard these. Again, there is a double-standard. Some things in life don't make sense, and some things aren't fair.

Answer 3

law! that made my stomach turn. if your going to let anyone do what they want to a child and call it a tribal custom...then anyone can abuse their child in any way they want to. just because its a custom does not mean its correct. we cant go around following whats been done for 1000 years just because its been done. if at some point you find out proof that its wrong you need to stop. we have proof this is wrong. if the sexual reason aren't enough to you how about the deaths and infections?... women who suffer FGM (female genital mutilation) suffer horrible infections, and some die during or after having it done. then there are the poor women who die in labor or their babies die because they are not able to be born proper. the body is designed the way it is for function. if you change it you change its proper functions. often women who suffered FGM have to be cut and stitched to deliver a baby because it will not come out the hole that is left after FGM. some of these women will die as a result or their babies will die from being stuck. no custom should be allowed to infringe itself or religion for that matter to a degree that will complete change their natural body forever until they are of the age of consent. at the age of 18 if with full knowledge and no pressure some one wishes then it is their choice.

Answer 4

There are many behaviors and practices that people do, or want to do, because it's a family or community tradition, but when these behaviors are exposed to a greater moral and legal oversight, they are outlawed. People might think beating their kids with sticks is okay, because their parents did it to them, but despite their family tradition, the law says it's not okay to do that.

Tribal, community, or religious custom is rarely a democratically derived process. American law should prevail - a majority of people voted to outlaw the practice because they deem it abusive and immoral.

Answer 5

The practice of female circumcision is condemned by the UN . . .

In this instance, US law should clearly take precedence.

Answer 6

When you move to another country you must obey the laws of that country. Your own religion and tribal custom are meaningless.