A "Finnish" Politician Wants to Open Up Discussion About Child Genital Mutilation

Hey, it was bound to happen at some point. This was a little quicker than I had anticipated - yeah, that's what she said - but I knew it was going to happen.

Basically, a nutjob muslim in a position of power in Finland by the name of Muhis Azizi has stated that he wants to "open up the dialogue" regarding child genital mutilation. He calls it circumcision, but I've always refused to use that term since it's just a silly euphemism; if you're pro genital cutting, you better have the required backbone to talk straight about mutilating children's penises.

No need to hide behind euphemisms. It is what you are advocating for. So own it.

So, now that we've established that it's child genital mutilation that we're talking about here, let me just point out that first of all it's always puzzled me to such an immense degree that whenever the legal status of MGM is being discussed, it becomes a conversation about the parents' rights.

The parents' right to choose.

But Jesus, it's not about the fucking parents. For crying out loud.

Maybe, just maybe, when an irreversible surgical operation is being done on a person, the person whose right to choose we should care about is the person receiving the fucking operation.

Right?

You can't just do things to your kid because he or she is your kid. That's just not how it works.

It doesn't become an issue about your right to choose just because it's your kid. A kid is a human being, not an inanimate object.

We wouldn't mutilate an adult against their will without asking them. So, why does it become more okay to do it on a kid who is absolutely defenseless and powerless to say no or put up a fight?

I've always wondered about this. The same goes for beating people, too: it's wrong to hit an adult, but it's okay to hit a child - even though conventional wisdom would say the opposite.

But I digress.

Even if it's your kid, it doesn't mean he or she is your property. Yes, a kid needs your love, care, and protection, as well as rules and disciple, until he or she is old enough to care for oneself, but there's still a really, really large gap between "your kid" and "a piece of property".

I think we can all agree that having sex with a three-year-old is probably a thing that should be frowned upon. As a collective society, we should not be okay with that.

But really when you think about it, why is slicing a piece of a kid's penis less bad?

Anyone?

MGM is irreversible; even if the kid feels bad about it later on, even if he denounces the religion later on, it won't matter. It's done.

People actually use the justification of "Well, the kid is asleep when it happens, he won't remember a thing".

Okay. So, I guess it's okay for me to go rape someone, just as long as they're asleep?

Because, I mean. It's not like she's going to remember it, so it doesn't matter. Right?

I'll tell you why MGM is considered less bad than raping your kid: because it's a cultural thing.

That's why. There's no other reason. And that's exactly why this idea of "Respecting and tolerating other cultures" is so dangerous.

The proposition that's being discussed here was made by a muslim, but let's talk about Jews for a second here, too.

I don't know how many people are aware of this, but the Orthodox Jewish circumcision ritual includes cutting around the foreskin of the baby's penis - and then removing the foreskin from the penis via mouth.

In what other context is it ever okay to take a baby's penis into one's mouth and sucking it?

Babies actually die due to the herpes virus that gets transmitted to them through this practice. It's a thing that happens. Not a common thing, mind you, but still a thing that happens. In an advanced western society. It seems so crazy, but it's true.

It emphasizes the point that because it's done behind the veil of "culture", it can be done away from any attention. People get used to looking the other way. There's no huge public outcry over the fact that children die due to catching herpes from a blowjob that's done against their will.

You can call it whatever you want, but that's basically what takes place.

But, again, because it's a cultural thing, people are okay with the idea that someone mutilates a child and then proceeds to give them a blowjob.

And hey, I get it: the reason I think the above is wrong is also cultural. Since I'm not a person who believes in God, there's nowhere for me to anchor my morality and pretend that it's anything but subjective and based on whims.

I admit that.

I would, however, argue that it just makes my case stronger - because it goes to show the power of culture. I'd say we're not even really bound by laws that much, I think culture has a much stronger impact on our everyday behaviour.

The real kicker is this: I don't think all cultures are equal.

I prefer some to others. I like the western culture. I like Catholicism more than, say, Islam. Or Judaism. Or Hinduism. Even though I'm not religious, I can recognize that a society built on top of Christianity, for instance, produces better results in regards to what I consider to be a well-functioning society than Islam does.

Does Islam have the edge over certain aspects of a secular western culture? I'd say so, yeah.

But child mutilation isn't one of them.

What I've always found strange about the dialogue revolving around genital mutilation is the following:

Let's say a culture existed, in which it was customary to carve out the eyeballs of, say, every third newborn baby. Then you'd ask people around you: "Hey, should we be accepting of this sort of culture?"

The people would refuse to accept it. They'd tell you: "No, that's barbaric and medieval".

Which, of course, would be true.

However, in doing so, people would accidentally admit that a line is drawn somewhere. To me, personally, this has always begged the question of why the fuck has the line been drawn at a newborn's penis. Of all things.

It doesn't even have to be anything as extreme as the eyeball example; let's say it was cutting a piece of baby's ear. Or a toe. Keep poking, and you'll find the line drawn somewhere.

Yet, somehow, it's still not drawn at "Hey, let's not harm a newborn baby's penis".

For whatever reason.

So how far is too far? How many things are we going to accept and a turn a blind eye to?

Personally, I don't want to find out. I think when it comes to something like cutting at the genitals of little children, we're already crossing a line.