Maine House Democrats Vote to Allow Female Genital Mutilation

Thank you that is a good article. It says that there is a Fedral law against gentital mutilation but the Gov of Maine le Page proposed a law and that those pesky Democrats ( my words) proposed their own bill. I do not know how the two bill differ so it is hard to determine if le Page or the pesky Democratic opposition is right.

 

Muslims far outrank women on the liberal victim totem pole. So the religious ceremony (butchery) is of greater importance than women's health and sexuality.

 

I understand that there is a Federal Law that is supposed to be against genital mutilation or at least covers such an act.

 

Research

18 U.S. Code § 116

 

The male equivalent of cutting off a clitoris would be to remove the entire glans of the penis. It's disrespectful to even make a comparison, the gravity is completely different.

 

Not sure I agree with ANY law that restricts a legal adult from mutilating their own body regardless of how horrific.

 

The issue is doing it to children...

 

This is not a liberal conservative issue.

So are you saying that those who support the right of male circumcision do so from a partisan basis ?

I am not a proponent of female circumcision so do not go there.

 

I didn't say that it was the same as cutting out the whole clitoris.

The removal of the clitoral hood is considered FGM, and it can be argued that it's the same, or even not as bad, as the removal of the foreskin.

Also, the "gravity being different" doesn't make something right. The gravity of removing someone's finger isn't the same as removing his arm. It doesn't make it right.

 

You're welcome - I spent some time in Bangor when I was living in Canada and still have some friends there. I guess if you read Stephen King you know about it as well, but that's another story. From what I understand, the take on it from some is the fear that they have too many immigrants coming over as it is who think it's perfectly normal and want in on the books that this specific action isn't to be tolerated once someone gets the idea that hey, we did it in the motherland, let's start doing it here. There's also the concern (imagined or real) that when it happens, the perps will hide behind it being a religious custom and thus Freedom of Religion and so forth. The law might be more for show than anything else, but *shrugs* - politics, whaddayagunnado?

There's some irony and more than a little humor to be found when a number of people who are against this law even existing also support more laws regarding guns when we already have laws against murder.

 

Maine Democrats just want their newly arrived muslim extremists to feel "at home" in Maine, and not "threatened" by or "pressured" into our local culture or customs. Remember, these are the voters the democrats in Maine believe are their future. Why get in the way of a little child endangerment, torture, or abuse?

 

Beat me to it. A much more balanced review of the messed up politics on all sides behind all this than the blatantly biased source in the OP.

 

Why do you ignore the present laws against endangerment, torture, assault, abuse ?

Do you like Bigger Government with more unnecessary laws ? Why?

 

With democrats in control, its only a matter of time until such things will become mandatory

 

Even when done to kids, who are not old enough to make such a decision? But I am with you. If an adult wants to cut off their clits, whose business is it? Hers. But in the case of kids? Who have this done to them, with no choice? So lines should be drawn, obviously.

 

Democrats dont care about federal laws, just look at federal immigration law. Democrats wont stop until sharia law is fully implemented, and everyone will be forced to pay for it under obamacare.

 

I doubt that any of them could be used to protect or prevent the abuse noted. I'm sure you can cite some legal proceedings or case law that refutes my position? No? Ok. So, the laws on the books both couldn't and wouldn't be used. So stop pretending they would.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Why do you ignore the present laws against endangerment, torture, assault, abuse ?

Do you like Bigger Government with more unnecessary laws ? Why?

I agree to a certain extent. It IS hard to prosecute these cases because of the secrecy of the sick people who commit these crimes and the fact they're done to children and the crime is not obvious (like a kid showing up at school with bruises) so it's hard to even suspect.

The present laws could be used. Why not?

Do laws against torture/abuse/assault/maiming need to list every body part that it's against the law to torture/abuse/assault/maim ? No.





Do you like Bigger Government with more unnecessary laws ? Why?

 

So, you failed to answer the question. Your approach to ask yet another question seems disingenuous. Find a case where a law was cited in the US and someone was charged after a female circ was done. Just one. For most liberals, having laws doesn't actually mean they are enforced, so it seems incredible to me that your position is that a law suffices anyway. Wouldn't your position be that the parents be fully background checked, and their children be forcibly removed from them so society is protected from those parents vis a vis their children?

Or, as I pointed out earlier, are you more a don't pester the new folks kind of liberal, and you are just fine as long as their internal cultural practices don't make the front pages of the newspapers/media your ilk control anyway? Aren't you just elated that the introduction of these practices in the US just further justify dependence on your kind of government?

 

I said legal adult, which the law currently states 18.

The law is very clear.

 

You make some very good intellectual thought provoking points here.
The Freedom of Religion argument which in the US is based upon the non establishment clause of our Contitution has at times been a two edged sword. that clause was used as a basis or not forcing Christian prayers to be said in schools yet one can argue that the Founders wrote it to prevent the government from establishing a particular church as a national church. Others see it as not letting government establish any
Specific church such as the Church of England.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
The present laws could be used. Why not?

Do laws against torture/abuse/assault/maiming need to list every body part that it's against the law to torture/abuse/assault/maim ? No.
Do you like Bigger Government with more unnecessary laws ? Why?

So, you failed to answer my questions.

Here's another question you won't answer:

HOW will additional laws change that ??????????????

Total BS, ...why just liberals? because you hate liberals, the only basis for any of your arguments..

,

So you do NOT believe in rights? OK, that is soooo ""righty/conservative".

ALL parents? or just the ones you don't like? Which ones should lose their rights?

You obviously don't believe in innocent until proven guilty or that there has to be proof of a crime before children are removed from their parents..

Where TF did I say anything remotely in favor of this practice ?....NO WHERE....your hatred is making you seem incoherent..

 

Ok, so this actually made me laugh. Especially when I pictured the indignant self righteousness with which it was delivered.. Thanks...

 

You must've been looking in a mirror.

still can't answer those inconvenient questions....

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/116