Yoder and FGM
conlawprof at YAHOO.COM
Thu Jan 10 08:59:11 PST 2002
Sandy notes that the benefits of male circumcision are
debatable and that are an increasing number of doctors
believe the costs of circumcision outweigh the
Sandy is correct, and I believe that from this we can
conclude that there are two medically-reasonable
options involving male circumcision (to cut, and not
to cut). How can a state have a compelling interest in
protecting boys against a medical procedure that is a
medically-reasonable choice for his parents to make on
FGM, on the other hand, is not deemed
medically-reasonable. It is considered mutilation, not
a medical procedure. It seems to me that one could
thus argue that the state has a compelling interest in
protecting the bodily integrity of *young girls* from
being forced by their parents to undergo a permanent
form of mutilation.
But here is an interesting paradox. Suppose a "mature
minor" agrees with her parents about FGM and decides
that FGM is something she wants because of her own
sense of religious identity? Does the state have a
compelling interest to interfere with the choice of a
mature minor (or, say, a 19, 20, or 21 year-old woman)
to undergo FGM? Does the right of sexual and
reproductive privacy provide a second claim for the
FGM-seeking young woman? If sexual pleasure is an
intimate, personal choice, do young women have a right
to forego that pleasure if that is their choice?
Cheers, Rick Duncan
"Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs the storm."
--President George W. Bush (quoting John Page)
"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow Galahad or Mordred; middle things are gone." -C.S. Lewis
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
More information about the Religionlaw