All Female Genital mutilation should be banned
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||5 days ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||292 times||Debate No:||95990|
FGM violates the right to bodily autonimy- should be banned.
I’m disappointed in my opponent for a lack of argument. It makes it hard for me to put a lot of effort into this when he is not even trying. He never explains what bodily autonomy is, why we should care about it, and how every single form of female genital mutilation violate that. Let’s define a few terms so we know what we’re talking about.
Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)- “Female genital mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.” http://www.who.int...
Bodily Autonomy- “the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy and the self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. It considers the violation of bodily integrity as an unethical infringement, intrusive, and possibly criminal.” https://en.wikipedia.org...
The Social Contract
There is no reason to consider bodily autonomy a right. Certainly it is a factor when balancing an individual’s rights, but it should not be considered a right in and of itself. We have voluntarily decided to live in a society of laws. This is known as the social contract, we give up some of our freedom so that we can gain the benefits of society, for example a good healthcare system, roads police, an army to protect us from outsiders, public and private utilities etc.
If we have agreed implicitly through the social contract to live in society, we have by extension agreed to give up some bodily autonomy to gain the benefits of society. We cannot use our bodies however we please. We are not allowed to do illegal drugs that harm our body, push our feet all the way down on the gas pedal when we feel like it, or even use the bathroom when and where we feel like.
As you can see, we do not have any right to our own bodies completely. If you don’t believe me go out and attack your neighbor, then see if the police by your argument that it is your body, if you feel like swinging your fists towards your neighbors face you can.
We have no right to bodily autonomy. Even had I not made the previous argument, my opponent has never made an argument for bodily autonomy being an absolute right, so he fails to prove his case.
Bans violate Autonomy
An anthropologist that has witnessed and studied FGM first hand, discusses in an interview with The Atlantic that in some cultures grown women voluntarily opt for their labia to get a little nic. My opponent would harm their bodily autonomy by banning them from doing it. Here is what The Atlantic says:
“I thought African girls were held down and butchered against their will, but some of them voluntarily and joyfully partake in the ritual. I thought communities would surely abandon the practice once they learned of its negative health consequences. And yet, in Shell-Duncan's experience, most people who practice FGC recognize its costs—they just think the benefits outweigh them.”
And referring to somebody who got nicked
“ she was proud. She sat there stoic and looked up at a focal point. She didn’t flinch, and that’s apparently a really important part of showing your maturity: Can you withstand the pain? It shows that you have the maturity to face the hardship that is coming as a woman.” http://www.theatlantic.com...
Back Alley Clit Cutting
Some people from cultures who practice FGM are going to go to Western societies and engage in it anyway. By banning it you drive the practice underground. Female circumcision is rather safe when done properly and is about as dangerous as male circumcision, which is not very dangerous at all. However by banning FGM, you drive the practice into people’s kitchens by untrained relatives and friends. The results can be disastrous, resulting in infections and even death. If we legalize or keep legal FGM, we can ensure that it is being done by a professional in a safe environment.
The way I see it, there are 2 forms of FGM; consentual, and non-consensual.
WHY CONSENSUAL FGM SHOULD BE BANNED
This is why I cited the right to bodily autonimy; I knew that you would create an argument against absolute bodily autonmy, allowing me to prove my point with your arguments.
What does this mean? Well, in my opponents response she stated:
"If we have agreed implicitly through the social contract to live in society, we have by extension agreed to give up some bodily autonomy to gain the benefits of society. We cannot use our bodies however we please. We are not allowed to do illegal drugs that harm our body, push our feet all the way down on the gas pedal when we feel like it, or even use the bathroom when and where we feel like."
So here my opponent argues that you should not be able to do certain things with your body that harm yourself. Hence, prving my case that consensual FGM should be banned.
REASON NUMBER TWO
FGM is nothing more than grevious bodily harm consensual or not. But the fact is FGM is never consensual, and in the few cases where it is, the girl has been indoctrinated into a sick culture. This is not real consent since the girl is not thinking prpoperly, and is more like giving someone a ruffee or getting them very drunk before having sex with them; just because they say they consent does not ean it is a legitimate consent, it is called date rape and is as well as ought to be considered just as bad as any other form of rape.
REASON NUMBER THREE
In most cases of FGM it is claimed that the girl wanted to be mutilated, but the fact is they are not going to say so if they did not; thesee families or cultures that would commit such monstrous acts are not the kids which a girl would speak out against. Their parents would just claim that she wanted it, and the girl, out of fear, would most likely confirm this lie.
REASON NUMBER FOUR
If anyone consents to FGM, not being forced to or indoctrinated into a culure whch condones it, they should be admitted into a mental hospital. This is no different than BID (Bodily Integrity Disorder) and is a serious mental illness. No sane doctor who took the Hypocrattic oath would preform such a procedure, since it says:
"I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art."
HOW TO COMPLETELY ABOLISH FGM
My opponent says that by banning FGM you simply drive the practice underground, whilst this is true, I could claim that we should legalise murder because murderers are now simply more sly about commiting it. A real solution is not to simply bann it, but to wage war on it.
We need to declare culural, legal, and militaristic war on any individuel, culture, or nation who wold practice such a vile ritual. This should constitute the folowing:
1. Make a public example of anyone who practices, aids in, or condones the practice of FGM- I believe we shuld implement the rule "measure for measure," or "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," and have them slowly castrated with a rusty butterknife (measure for measure) them be executed.
2. Release Anti-FGM propaganda and leafles criminalising and villanising this barbaric practice
3. Increase spending on police and crack down hard on these dirtbags, put 10 billion toward invesigating possible cases and indicting individuels charged with it.
4. Declare war on countries that have not illegalised FGM, tear down their governance and take their children out of this indoctrination.
5. In the 1700's they used to put pirates in tiny cages until they died and their bodies rotted away, this would leave skeletons of such people hanging as shandileers- we should adopt such a punishment and make examples out of them.
This is super rushed, I apologize in advance.
WHY CONSENSUAL FGM SHOULD BE BANNED
The absolute right to bodily autonomy is what I argued against, and something my opponent has now agreed with. However, this does not mean that bodily autonomy should not be considered in policy making. I clearly stated and stand by the fact that it’s a balancing act.
So here my opponent argues that you should not be able to do certain things with your body that harm yourself. Hence, proving my case that consensual FGM should be banned.
Yes you cannot do certain things with your body, but the mere fact you are harming yourself does not mean an act should be illegal. Eating donuts and smoking is not illegal. The reason drugs are illegal, is because of their overall harm to society, if most people addicted to crack were only hurting themselves, it would not be against the law. If a woman wants to take a razor blade and nick her labia a bit, it is none of the governments business and a violation of the social contract to get in the way of local customs, by making it illegal. If the local society has deemed something acceptable and a part of tradition, then making it illegal is outside of the social contract. It is not a law that the majority wants to keep societ r./zy safer or make it better. it would be a violation of the social contract to attack the culture of society.
Unfortunately I screwed up and have 15 minutes to do this, but looking at my opponents ideals for punishments, they are worse than the crime itself. Particularly points 4 and 5
“. Declare war on countries that have not illegalised FGM, tear down their governance and take their children out of this indoctrination.
My opponent insists that indoctrination is the same as a date rape drug and then proposes to attack indoctrinated people through war and torture. The punishment does not fit the crime and you should vote wylted.
Kinda disorganized here and sorry, but my points should win out. Indoctrination is not the same as date rape, and my opponent is being silly for claiming it is, and their culture is not inferior for FGM, we actually circumcise males in the United States, and that circumcision is as safe as the ones done on females at wedding ceremonies if done correctly and by a trained professional, something that could not happen if my opponent places a ban on it.
As far as his argument about banning murder even though it can’t be completely prevented, it is irrelevant. It is a good policy because it actually deters murder, and it gets murderers off the street. The people circumcising women are themselves in some of these situations, so he would lock them up and torture the women. This would actually scare women out of getting medical treatment if something goes wrong when they give their labia a little nick. It has a far better outcome to not ban it so the ritual can be performed by a doctor, and also so women can get medical treatment if something goes wrong, instead of dying because they are scared of my opponent’s recommendation to imprison and torture them or their loved ones.
My opponent has dropped points 2, 3, and 4- and has only responded to point number 1 and an argument of mine as to how FGM should be abolished, which is off topic, and I only brought it up to rebuttal my opponent’s point that banning FGM would drive it underground. The actual punishments prescribed there were just overexadurated examples which I used to respond to a separate point.
1. It applies to my culture and your culture no less- if my opponent claims that all cultures are equal, then how can he rationally object to my advised course of actions in regard to banning FGM and going to war against countries who practice it? After all, I could say that it's my culture to ban FGM and torture those who practice it, and according to my opponent- there wouldn't be a damn thing wrong with it.
FGM on the other hand is like kidnapping someone, strapping them down, cutting them open, then ripping out their entrails and eating them like you were a zombie in the Walking Dead, then saying that he wanted it when the police arrest you. It isn't even comparable, and again, I am disgusted.
Another point, FGM eliminates the females ability to feel pleasure, whilst circumcision has no such effects. FGM results in horrible infections, Circumcision does not. FGM removes an entire organ system, Circumcision removes a tiny bit of useless flesh that makes a male subject to infections, STD's, and frankly it's just gross.
Like I said before, if someone preforms FGM on themselves without being forced to or being indoctrinated into a sick culture, they are suffering from BIID (Bodily Integrity Identity Disorder), and needs help.
Further, these girls who “consent” to FGM are not thinking straight, in fact many times they “consent” to it but later when they are older they begin thinking clearly and see it as barbaric.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.