Law banning female genital mutilation ruled unconstitutional!

It's tough to side with, but the judge is right. The indignation should be aimed at those who commit the act and the state legislators that allow it.

a reply to: LABTECH767

I don't know of any with an increase but the majority of the studies focus on HIV. Other STI seem to be decreased too.

Interestingly, when high-risk populations were examined, circumcision was associated with a significant risk reduction for the same STIs.15
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

originally posted by: headorheart
a reply to: Xtrozero

Do you think the ruling was in relation to the recent transgender rights movement?
I understand this was a father/daughter and religious and disgusting on top of it.
I just wonder if that might be the background to the judge decision?

Or do you think it was more freedom of religion ruling? Either way - no, just no.

He ruled in favor of same sex marriage, is also married to a phycologist, so who knows, but I don't think he fully understands what we are talking about here, as in mutilation.

originally posted by: Tellurian


We should just be thanxful they don't practice human sacrifice and cannibalism...

I agree..at what point do we stop?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Reading the article provided I see that the judge is against female genital mutilation but he is also against incorrect power given to the US Congress and that this issue is according to the Constitution a states responsibility to legislate.

I'm sure that this judge, just like me and I think you and most others hope to see each and every state ban this ugly practice. Immediately.

a reply to: Kurokage

I don't need skepticism, it's scientifically proven. This here is a Canadian study, not American.


On balance, there does seem to be support in the literature at this time for the efficacy of circumcision in reducing the acquisition of ulcerative STIs.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

It's actually a perfect ruling once I looked into it. I went from thinking this was a liberal judge to now thinking it's likely a Republican.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That is interesting, the Langerhans cell's basically capture foreign body's and deliver them to the immune system in as biologically a safe way as they can, it's there purpose but HIV want's to go exactly were this early warning system take's it right to the liver were it can then infect as many T cell's as it want's.
So I am actually surprised by that finding.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
I wouldn't and didn't make that choice for my son by having his genitals cut. His future choice if he wants to do it to save getting an STD by some tiny chance lol, absolute barbarism to me, just routinely cutting male babies, genuinely shocks me as a bystander to your nation from Europe.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Kurokage

It isn't just skin , they remove the child's clitoris.

There are more sexual nerve endings in a clitoris than a penis. We need to also understand it is a religious act to prevent sexual arousal in woman. That for a woman to be horny and maybe have a orgasm is against God's will, but hey for a man to be horny and rape a woman it is the woman's fault for making the man honey in the first place. Such things as not wearing a full burka is an example of what a woman can do as wrong in being guilty of having a man rape her.

This is what we are talking about in all this...

a reply to: Xtrozero

What's the point of removing her clit? That's terrible.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Xtrozero

Judges are crazy lately. We need a complete redo.

Like 90% of them..left or right...

Many of these F'ers are like 80 and need to move on or die...

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Xtrozero

What's the point of removing her clit? That's terrible.

See the post above yours

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

That's great, I'm not going to try to convince you or anyone else to do it. I'm just saying stop spreading untruthful statements. It has numerous health benefits, if the math doesn't work out for you to do it that's fine, the health benefits are still fact. It also reduces risk of cancer for both him and his wife/ sex partners.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Xtrozero

Posted already

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks, I looked but I guess I missed it..

a reply to: Xtrozero

Once I looked into it this ruling is actually correct. Congress overstepped.

a reply to: LSU2018
It is awful isn't it, and again it's been illegal for years in the UK, but not a single prosecution.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Your evidence is myth and rubbish.

Circumcision myths you may believe

a reply to: Xtrozero

It is not a religious command of ANY of the world's major religion's, it is however a tribal tradition.

There are between 4 to 8 time's as many sensory nerves in the head of the clitoris alone as there are in the tip of a man's penis.

a reply to: LSU2018

The purpose is to remove sexual pleasure so she has no interest in sex and won't be unfaithful.