Yoder and FGM

[Rick Duncan]

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
benefits.

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
his behalf?

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!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/