Quote:
Originally Posted by PointlessWords
MGM has similar numbers in the US, why dont you bring that up ?
You're comparing completely removing any sexual pleasure a woman can have externally (by partially or totally removing the genetalia), to circumcision? And at age 7 to 10!
These things are not the same, lol. There is ZERO benefit to FGM. Circumcision demonstrably lowers the chances of UTIs, some STIs, easier hygiene.
This equivalency you're drawing is weak to non-existent.
But don't take me from me, take it from Plan
Myth #2: FGM is no different from male circumcision
Fact: Male circumcision is a common procedure in some communities involving the removal of the foreskin on genitalia. The health consequences of male circumcision are drastically different when compared to FGM. According to the World Health Organisation, circumcision of male babies results in "a very low rate of adverse events, which are usually minor (0.2-0.4%)”. Female genital mutilation, on the other hand, is the cutting and/or partial or total removal of genitalia itself. It is estimated that FGM is performed by a medical professional on one in five girls; more often, however, it is performed by community elders, practitioners of traditional medicine, and relatives in rural settings. It is also often performed in unsanitary environments using old knives, razor blades, scissors or broken glass, and without anesthetic. The average age for girls to undergo FGM is between 7 and 10 years old. Adverse effects of FGM include painful intercourse, menstrual blockage, urinary blockage and infection, wound infection, septicaemia and even death. In fact, women who have undergone FGM are twice as likely to die during childbirth and are more likely to give birth to a stillborn baby than those who haven’t.