Female Genital Mutilation

homeagain wrote:

Brandon wrote:

ramage wrote: What more can be said about the legal system. Bring your female children to me and I will remove their clitoris and labia because our culture demands it. Courtesy of the Federal District Court, Bernard Friedman presiding: It is unconstitutional to not allow this practice.

Wrong. The ruling was that the federal government did not have the constitutional authority to prohibit it, and that doing so is a state's responsibility.
This is actually a ruling that would be applauded by thoughtful and intellectually coherent conservatives.

so WHY was it not presented to the CORRECT COURT......in the first attempt. find it TERRIFYING that all males are responding, if i understand the avatar/names......where are the FEMALES ON THIS TOPIC

here is the complete link.......I see a problem with this
www.nytimes.com/2018/11/21/health/fgm-fe...-mutilation-law.html

It was presented to the correct court. The charge was federal.

Brandon,
Unconstitutional = federal government did not have the constitutional authority to prohibit it.
It appears that you enjoy parsing words rather than commenting on the fact that the court ruled that genital mutilation, i. e. removing the clitoris and labia majorum from a pre-adolescent girl due to the parsing of words.
I also enjoy the fact that you support states' rights. Can I assume that you believe that Roe v. Wade was a states' rights issue?

ramage wrote: Brandon,
Unconstitutional = federal government did not have the constitutional authority to prohibit it.

That is not what you said in the OP. In the OP you said it was unconstitutional to not allow it.

ramage wrote: It appears that you enjoy parsing words rather than commenting on the fact that the court ruled that genital mutilation, i. e. removing the clitoris and labia majorum from a pre-adolescent girl due to the parsing of words.

I'm just going to let that word salad ripen and wilt.

ramage wrote: I also enjoy the fact that you support states' rights. Can I assume that you believe that Roe v. Wade was a states' rights issue?

Your very first sentence is an assumption. You obviously can assume many things.

The salad has wilted, so now will you answer the question? Your statements certainly supports states rights vs. the federal government, or do you now longer stand behind your statements:
"Wrong. The ruling was that the federal government did not have the constitutional authority to prohibit it, and that doing so is a state's responsibility."

Here in America we have a saying that there is no such thing as a stupid question. That statement is not true. The question of whether or not I support state's rights is stupid for two reasons:
1. It presupposes a yes or no answer, which is clearly impossible for such a complex matter.
2. It assumes an opinion on my part which was not expressed - I was just describing the facts of the decision.
As to the more specific question of whether or not I believe Roe v. Wade was correctly decided, I don't know. I'm not an expert in constitutional law.

I find it rich with irony that the males on this thread have NOT considered their own offspring in this equation. (depending upon age YOUR DAUGHTER OR GRANDDAUGHTER)....what if your spouse adhered to this religious ritual and YOUR daughter could be "cut" or mutilated. Let's break it down NOW.....what would be your actions to protect YOUR child,grandchild.????

The reason for posting this topic re: FMG was to show how a judge can pervert (pun intended)
the legal system. I did not feel that it was necessary to reference my granddaughters. Regardless of one's sex, the practice of female genital mutilation is odious.

ramage wrote: The reason for posting this topic re: FMG was to show how a judge can pervert (pun intended)
the legal system. I did not feel that it was necessary to reference my granddaughters. Regardless of one's sex, the practice of female genital mutilation is odious.

IF you (collectively) are observant and average intelligence, you could cite many occasions where the legal system is biased/prejudice.

MOST RECENTLY a case with Judge Kavanaugh. I LISTENED intently to the audio of his presiding over a case of abortion. A young migrant female (17 0r 18) in the "critical window" of timing of termination. Her lawyer was pleading the case.....presenting the facts and requesting a TIMELY decision, since time was of the essence. She was just at the very edge of
the limits and Judge K was asking for a delay so she could have an adult sponsor be appointed. The lawyer was exasperated, took the case to another judge and was GRANTED
THE ABORTION just in time.....I will attempt to find the link for this TRAVESTY It happens
all the time, so your reason for this post is questionable , at best. JMO

homeagain wrote:

ramage wrote: The reason for posting this topic re: FMG was to show how a judge can pervert (pun intended)
the legal system. I did not feel that it was necessary to reference my granddaughters. Regardless of one's sex, the practice of female genital mutilation is odious.

IF you (collectively) are observant and average intelligence, you could cite many occasions where the legal system is biased/prejudice.

MOST RECENTLY a case with Judge Kavanaugh. I LISTENED intently to the audio of his presiding over a case of abortion. A young migrant female (17 0r 18) in the "critical window" of timing of termination. Her lawyer was pleading the case.....presenting the facts and requesting a TIMELY decision, since time was of the essence. She was just at the very edge of
the limits and Judge K was asking for a delay so she could have an adult sponsor be appointed. The lawyer was exasperated, took the case to another judge and was GRANTED
THE ABORTION just in time.....I will attempt to find the link for this TRAVESTY It happens
all the time, so your reason for this post is questionable , at best. JMO

www.aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom/a...hs-one-abortion-case