The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Why do those that carry out FGM in NSW have immunity from prosicution

Why do those that carry out FGM in NSW have immunity from prosicution

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
"The male equivalent would be removal of seven eights of the penis "
That's called castration idiot.
Posted by Steel, Sunday, 4 March 2007 11:45:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FGM in Australia? Thank you multiculturalism!
Posted by Oligarch, Monday, 5 March 2007 1:33:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Steel,

Now don't let your frustration at being unable to comprehend simple English get the better of your inate desire not to be offensive.

Shortening of the penis is not castration; castration is removal of the testes; or in simpler more easily understandable terms 'cuttin' off yer balls'
Compre?
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 5 March 2007 7:29:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tragically comparisons with male circumcision trivialise female genital mutilation and makes eradication unlikely. I would be unsurprised if this thread gets derailed as a result of this comparison.

For some reason some homosexual groups ardently hate male circumcision and they can be just as effective at persuading as other types of homosexual activists. Whether this hatred is some type of foreskin fetish or due to the association with the Judaic beginnings of Christianity (something else homosexual activists typically hate) or some other explanation I don't know.

I took an interest in this a few years ago. I read a study supposedly debunking research indicating that circumcision protects against AIDS. The study claimed that circumcision shouldn't be seen as beneficial against AIDS because the AIDS acquired by the uncircumcised is not due to their foreskin but "factors associated with the foreskin". As human life is at stake I fail to relate to this irrelevant and pedantic distinction. It simply shows the determination to oppose circumcision.

I also read a reputable medical organisation downplaying circumcision as a risk factor for penile cancer but listing phimosis as a risk factor. Hello! Phimosis is a tight foreskin. Circumcising prevents tight foreskins. For the record I emailed the relevant organisation due to internet comments about research that made it sound like there is doubt about the relevant effectiveness of circumcision. They emailed me two studies that didn't verify the comments that they supposedly were authority for. As with other areas of preventative medicine it probably isn't essential these days but it seems strange to criticise it too much as some people benefit so much from so little. But some people feel quite strongly.

We live at a time when fluoridisation, circumcision, and immunisation are held out by fanatical groups as a blight on society. Preventative medicine is not enjoying a hay day.

For trivia buffs: In cold countries circumcision seems to be next to useless as a preventative measure and can be counterproductive in extreme situations. Arctic explorers who are circumcised are more likely to get frostbite where they least want it.
Posted by mjpb, Monday, 5 March 2007 9:34:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Correction:

For trivia buffs: In cold countries circumcision seems to be next to useless as a preventative measure FOR PENILE CANCER and can be counterproductive in extreme situations. Arctic explorers who are circumcised are more likely to get frostbite where they least want it.

I thought I should clarify that as other things like AIDs and Urinary Tract infections may not be affected by climate.

Finally, if you are planning on living recklessly and dieing young you won't get penile cancer anyway. The reduction in Australian circumcision rates of neonates in the 70s won't result in painful deaths for about another 20 years.
Posted by mjpb, Monday, 5 March 2007 9:38:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why no prosecutions?

Perhaps the family would not bring them to the hospital -- speculation only. But then it would be more of a problem when the bodies start to pile up at the morgue. How would the Telegraph spin that one? After all it is only a few.

But why would any well informed person be surprised about pandering to the minorities

In Auburn schools it is offensive to show the soles of your shoes to certain people when sitting down for polite conversation. The government departments who promulgate this crap are apparently not offended by someone who is offended, when it is patently obvious no offense was intended.

Government by the minority for the minority.
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Monday, 5 March 2007 5:35:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy