Even if you limit the comparison to the most severe forms of FGM, there are reasonable comparisons to be made, just not in terms of intent. Nobody is aiming for these outcomes with male circumcision, but some of them are nonetheless horrendous.
The most severe forms of FGM are intentional. The most severe forms of male circumcision, aren'…
Even if you limit the comparison to the most severe forms of FGM, there are reasonable comparisons to be made, just not in terms of intent. Nobody is aiming for these outcomes with male circumcision, but some of them are nonetheless horrendous.
The most severe forms of FGM are intentional. The most severe forms of male circumcision, aren't, though are probably more numerous because the procedure is orders of magnitude more common. Nobody intentionally removes the glans in part or in full, but it happens because of botched procedures. Nobody amputates the penis altogether, but it happens because of infection. When you perform tens of millions of circumcisions, this happens. When it comes to ritual circumcision or some of the less hygienic but not totally primitive versions practiced in Asia and Africa, the rates of serious complications are astronomically high.
Fair. I tend to focus on the intent piece, since bad outcomes are always a risk with any surgery. But I can see an argument that intent is less important when you're talking about the number of individuals who could be hurt.
Intent matters in terms of how you treat the perpetrator, it's almost irrelevant to the victims of whatever the act is. So I would agree if the context was what ought to be done about people performing FGM vs male circumcision, that intent was really important. But the context is the effects on the people who are being circumcised, so I think overall harm in terms of outcome is more relevant to that side of the issue.
Even if you limit the comparison to the most severe forms of FGM, there are reasonable comparisons to be made, just not in terms of intent. Nobody is aiming for these outcomes with male circumcision, but some of them are nonetheless horrendous.
The most severe forms of FGM are intentional. The most severe forms of male circumcision, aren't, though are probably more numerous because the procedure is orders of magnitude more common. Nobody intentionally removes the glans in part or in full, but it happens because of botched procedures. Nobody amputates the penis altogether, but it happens because of infection. When you perform tens of millions of circumcisions, this happens. When it comes to ritual circumcision or some of the less hygienic but not totally primitive versions practiced in Asia and Africa, the rates of serious complications are astronomically high.
Fair. I tend to focus on the intent piece, since bad outcomes are always a risk with any surgery. But I can see an argument that intent is less important when you're talking about the number of individuals who could be hurt.
Intent matters in terms of how you treat the perpetrator, it's almost irrelevant to the victims of whatever the act is. So I would agree if the context was what ought to be done about people performing FGM vs male circumcision, that intent was really important. But the context is the effects on the people who are being circumcised, so I think overall harm in terms of outcome is more relevant to that side of the issue.