Hello Freedomphiles! Today, I got this link from the Association of Libertarian Feminists concerning the practice of "nicking," which is the ritualistic cutting of the genitals of young girls, among the Sudanese and Somali populations in Australia. All forms of genital mutilation have been outlawed in the country since the 1990's, but they are considering allowing the practice again because it is so tied to the cultural and religious beliefs of those who practice it, they are just doing it at home, with disastrous results.
Nicking is a less drastic form of genital cutting, meant to meet the spiritual needs of those who practice it without allowing a full-on mutilation. The World Health Organization has three classifications for these procedures. Type I is the partial or total removal of the clitoris and prepuce (clitoral hood), Type II is type I, but they also remove the labia minora. and sometimes the labia majora. Type III is the most drastic, encompassing all of Type I and II, but they narrow the vaginal orifice and "seal" it. These are increasingly disturbing procedures, and knowing about those makes the nicking seem less terrible.
"If a nick could meet the cultural needs of a particular woman, then it might save her from going through what can really be drastic surgery." says Gino Pecoraro of the Royal Australian New Zealand College of Obstetricians. "But we need to make sure we do not legitimise the ritualistic maiming of children."
Now, on a personal level, I find all the practices, even the more innocuous nicking, abhorrent. But I can't shake the notion that nicking is no worse than another cultural and spiritual practice that is completely accepted and even encouraged throughout the world - male circumcision. I find it distasteful, as well. But I haven't seen the WHO out trying to stop that. In fact, quite the opposite.
At the same time, I think the argument that they must do this to prevent backyard genital mutilations falls short in the same way that the argument that abortion should be legal to prevent back alley abortions does. I mean, we don't legalize armed robbery because unprofessional armed robbers are more likely to shoot their victims, do we?
That's not to say that I am against legal abortion, per se, but the argument itself is pretty weak.
What this all hinges upon is where we draw the line as a society between respecting religious differences and protecting children, and whether we use State violence to enforce it. That is a problem for which there is no easy libertarian answer.
This is really no different than the issues faced by parents in faiths such as Jehova's Witnesses, who don't believe in lifesaving blood transfusions, among other things. When do we allow the State to step in and violate the religious freedom of these people? Do we let them pray at the bedside while their children slowly die? Do they have a right to determine the best course of treatment for their sick child, or do we need to step in as advocates for the young, who cannot speak for themselves? If we begin making these decisions for them, where does it end?
If you believe that everlasting life in Heaven is reliant upon following a course of action most of us think is cruel and ignorant, and that some pain in a bitterly short life pales in comparison to losing the gift of infinite grace, should that be your decision to make? Who are we to force our own values on you?
Is the price of freedom allowing other's to mutilate their children and allow them to die when there are proven lifesaving therapies available? Or is it a situation where, as one libertarian feminist commenter said, "There is no compromise with evil?" I honestly don't know. It is a question I've struggled with since becoming a libertarian.
What say you?
Posts
8 comments:
To me it is obviously disgusting child abuse. Worse even than circumcision, which is plenty horrible.
Both practices are mainly used to reduce sexual pleasure in later life for the mutilated individual, which is why they are mainly "religious" practices.
You can't attack your child and chop off her arm in order to obey your stupid religion without being an aggressor, nor can you sacrifice your child to your god without still being a murderer.
It isn't a question of religious freedom, it is a question of initiating force against a helpless person. Stepping in to stop this would be clearly "ZAP-compliant" (completely unlike stepping in to stop an abortion).
I thought you were about minding your own business. What is this drivel and what do you really know about it?
I agree with you, Kent. I don't like either practice, either. How do you feel about parents that want to pray a terminal illness away?
Personally, I believe we should all be free to make most of our own choices about our own bodies provided it does not harm any other person. So an adult that wants this ritual for their religion, fine. But not for children ever.
As far as parent dealing with their child's illnesses, my experience as a nurse leads me to knowing that every disease process is different and every person's body reacts differently to disease. The decision as to whether to treat or not to treat an illness depends on so many factors. However, I find people that would look at modern medicine and surgical intervention as something adverse to God as very sad and it sickens me to think that anyone would allow "God" to take a savable child because of the misguided belief it is God's will. It is also sad to think that anyone's God could be so small as to not make science and medicine possible.
That said, I don't see a way to not allow parents the right to make this choice unless you allow the child to make the choice for themselves. Even then, I don't know what to do in instances where children are too young to even understand what's happening let alone give informed consent. And sometimes the treatments are worse than the illness alone. Ultimately, I think it has to end up being a decision between the family, the patient, and their doctor. If the patient is determined able to choose for himself (therefore able to comprehend the risks of treatment and the lack of treatment including the concept of death and likelihood, levels of pain, and life changes during and after treatment), then the final decision should be left to the patient. Otherwise it falls to the family (parents in this situation). I'm not really sure what age would be able to do this.
That was a very thoughtful post, emilysrevolution. What is the age you would be comfortable with a girl deciding for herself? Is this just for the nicking, or even for the more drastic versions?
I feel that parents who "want to pray a terminal illness away" are being superstitiously stupid, but they are not initiating force. I would consider them a contributing factor in their child's death.
In most of these cases the child is so bound up in the religious practices of their family that they (in ignorance) consent to the practice. If the child, of any age, asked for actual medical care rather than just prayer, and the parents refused, then the parents are guilty of coercion against the child and intervention on behalf of the innocent would be called for.
One person "doing" accomplishes more than a million people praying.
And: Anonymous @ 11:34- Minding your own business ceases to be the right thing to do and ceases to follow libertarian principles once a "good libertarian" witnesses an innocent person being attacked. This doesn't mean that I hold other innocent people at gun-point and demand they "do something" about it, nor that I attack other innocent people rather than the guilty person whom I have caught in the act. That is what I know about this subject, and if you don't like it I suggest you never let a decent person catch you attacking an innocent victim, since this is what your objection seems to indicate you want to do.
You make a compelling argument, Kent. What if a kid says she WANTS the procedure? At what age do you think the kid can give informed consent to something so drastic, and would it vary depending upon the procedure (Types I, II, and III)?
I'm not big on "how old"; I prefer to go by how much a person understands and how self-responsible they are regardless of age.
If a kid wants the procedure I would be extremely honest and tell her how bad it will hurt (during the dismemberment and afterwards during the healing) and how it will affect her quality of life later on. If she does not understand the sexual realities being described then she is unable to give consent.
But, I am not willing to tell a person what she can or can not allow to be done to her own body no matter how much I disagree. If I were standing there while it was being done, and she screamed out to make them stop, you better believe I would do everything I could to make them stop.
Post a Comment