The male equivalent to female genital mutilation, as I have pointed out here before, is castration. It is not, in any sense, circumcision. I don’t understand the need to soften the impact of this barbaric procedure by calling it circumcision or ‘genital manipulation’.

Carolyn Moynihan said: “If we agree today that a woman has the right to bodily integrity, it is not because of some idea of her transcendent dignity, but only on the basis that she “owns” her body.”

Doesn’t she own her own body? It’s too convenient to say that God owns it because, as in the case of female genital mutilation, that idea allows Muslim and Christian religious leaders (men) to decide what will happen to it. Mistrust and fear of women is in the very DNA of these religions. Chivalry did not display a respect for women as you say it did in the beginning of your article. It emphasized that, in the eyes of her contemporaries and the Church, a woman could either be a saint, a witch, or a whore. The cult of the Virgin Mary is a tacit recognition of that and is an insult to every woman who ever bore a child. In my lifetime women had to be ‘Churched’ after giving birth because they were considered to be unclean.

Nothing has changed. The Church doesn’t really trust women. Women cannot be priests. Their worth is measured by how docile and subservient they are. In the end, when it comes to women, it’s the opinions and proclamations of the traditional religious entities that can’t be trusted.

This is a most excellent article: concise, to-the-point, sharply-argued, and poignant. Well done Carolyn!

Nice article. Female genital mutilation is one of the public health issues Nigeria especially in the North. Both government and non-governmental agencies are giving it a big push.

With education majority of the public have come to realise the negative health implications it for women. I admire your courage to speak out on a worse malady afflicting the West, abortions etc.

To David Page, the first to comment, I am really baffled with the illogicality of his points. I have reread your article and don’t seem to find the reason for his virulence. Anyway, its easier to sit in the comfort of the US and not realise the impact of female mutilation. We down here have witnessed it and its not just funny. As regards abortion, I think those of us from Africa have to re-educate the West which seem to have lost it’s focus. I don’t really understand how one can support abortion under the guise of empowering women. Dear David focus on the article and not religion. Female mutilation though may be propagated by religious fanatics but the greatest threat is lack of education. The educated Muslims don’t practise it anymore!

Nwachukwu Egbunike, did you read my post? I don’t understand what your saying about it.

Nwachukwu Egbunike said: “Female genital mutilation is one of the public health issues Nigeria especially in the North.”

It’s not a public health issue, it’s a crime against children.  The people, including parents, who are responsible for it should go to prison. Khalid Adem is in prison in America for that particular crime.

Nwachukwu Egbunike said: “Dear David focus on the article and not religion.”

Unfortunately, I think religion, in so far as it is a vehicle for the suppression of girls and women, is part of the problem. Most religious traditions simply don’t believe that women are the equals of men. Anyway, let’s agree that the brutal practice of female genital mutilation should end.

Yes David I read your post and I have re-read it once again. I’ll illustrate my points with two examples. The Sultan of Sokoto, the leader of Muslims in Nigeria is one of those in the forefront to putting an end to this disaster. I don’t think you can be more religious than he is? A former first lady of Nigeria, Justice Fati Abubakar- who is also a High Court Judge and a devout Muslim fought Female Mutilation and is currently doing so through a foundation she founded.

Female genital mutilation is a crime that is fueled by lack of education. As regards what you said about “religion, in so far as it is a vehicle for the suppression of girls and women, is part of the problem. Most religious traditions simply don’t believe that women are the equals of men.” That is a fall out of traditionalism, a fanatical approach to religion, an ideology, which is changing with the influence of proper education.

I still insist that this topic has nothing whatsover to do with religion. I suppose it may be difficult to accept this proposition especially with your bias.

Carolyn Moynihan’s article, like the one about Ireland preceding it, is excellent.  Thank you.

What does Egbunike mean by Africa re-educating the West about abortion. This is ambiguous. But from the overall drift of his comment, he seems to be implying that we don’t ‘do’ abortion in Africa - or that there is a serviceable method we have adopted to bypass abortion, or undercut mass abortion. If this is the import of Egbunike’s comment, then it is downright disingenuousness. Like Egbunike I am a Nigerian, and I think one of the more insidious of our problems in Africa is this attitude of cultural phariseeism. Our minds are still saddled with such notions as The West is decadent and Africa is pure, pristine. While I would not say that the problem of AIDS in Africa should be blamed solely on sexual morality or lack of it, at least it does show that Afrcans are as much at it as any other people. And concerning what we can teach the West about abortion: practically nothing. My country is full of doctors, nurses, quacks, speed abortionists that offer their services at short notice. As far back as late 1980s a girlfriend of mine had aborted three times before she was eighteen, just as any eighteen year old might have done if she did not decide to keep her pregnancies to full term. I think abortion is more of a global aberration (it’s not a problem, actually), rather than that of the West only.

to A. Oriku

I’d like you to explain what you mean about abortion being an ‘aberration’ and not a problem

Hi Ikenna. Would it not amount to professorial condescension if I began to explain the word aberration, even in the context that I used it? I’d rather you vent your own feelings about my usage of the word, for better or worse. Let’s not allow ourselves to be carried on the surf of Derridean casuitry. A mere textual reading of the word will do.

A Oriku, an aberration is a deviation from the expected norm. I would also like to know what you mean by it in the context that you used it.

“. A mere textual reading of the word will do.”

no it won’t…

“I think abortion is more of a global aberration (it’s not a problem, actually), rather than that of the West only.”

Of course abortion is an aberration if by aberration you mean the definition given by David Page the expected norm is that a pregnancy be carried to term when an aberration is made by law into the norm like it is in many countries today then there is a problem. Abortion is a problem because people do no see it as an aberration.

Of course we all know that Abortions are done in Nigeria and I’m sure Nwachukwu knows that. But one thing is certain: in Nigeria it is punishable by law to procure an abortion or to carry it out despite the well organized lobbying especially in recent times by some organisations. To the Nigeria abortion is generally seen for what it really is a grave injustice.

The dimension Carolyn brings into the debate is that people are condemned (and rightfully so) for seeing an aberration as hideous as FGM. The same should also be the case for other aberrations like abortion

David Page, From my comments I guess it is apparent that when it comes to the issue of abortion I may choose to gather with the pro-choicers. This no doubt informs my opinions on abortion. Now if I have to repeat the riff: I do not see why a woman should not have the right to do anything - within reason - with what she is carrying inside her. Although my feelings about aborting a foetus might come across as breezy when I described it as an ‘aberration,’ I certainly would not be cavalier about the issue of abortion. Flippancy was not my intention. However, I meant ‘aberration’ in the simplest sense of that word. I would not use the word ‘anomaly’ because that would be too strong for something that is engaged in often willingly and for useful reasons. For one, I am not religious enough to describe abortion as a sin, and I am not reactionary enough to see it as a crime. And if I’d called it a norm, even my libertarian friends would have thought I’d gone beyond merely ruffling the cassocks of Catholic priests. There is no normalising abortion, I mean it’s something that should be avoided if that is possible. But considering the way millions of abortion are carried out every year, it’s even become a norm by default; but to satisfy those who would be only too happy to cruficy me if I declared it a norm I had chosen a midway house, a tolerable word that seems to slot itself sensibly between a norm and an enormity.
This is hardly a clear way of parsing the word ‘aberration’ in the context that I used it but I think this will do.

Again the recital of the usual line regarding the importance of the woman’s rights and that the mother should be allowed to do whatever she wants with her body. This recital is ironic in the light of the comment made by

I agree with David Page in his remark that it is just too convenient to say that God owns a woman’s body because it then allows religious leaders to choose what they want to happen with it. Each woman, and man for that matter, is the owner of his or her body and makes their own free decisions about what they should do with it. But irony lies in the fact that on occasions some decisions are not made freely, but under pressure, or even worse, by court order. Where is the freedom in this? Where is the choice?

Further, where is the choice for the growing human in the womb. These arguments flying back and forth about equality...but as usual no mention of the rights of the child in the womb. It is apparent that some women see this job and this duty and service to mankind of carrying the child as a curse, but obviously there are no real alternatives (and I am not saying this in ignorance of test tube babies).

And you know what, I own my house, and I have decided that because I own absolutely every piece of it, and there is no other owner, even God cannot claim ownership of this, I have power over everyone who lives here to do as I please…

A Oriku, thanks.

Although I believe that an abortion is not good enough for me personally I could not tell another one that she can not have one.

Had the likes of Andrea Yates had abortion their children would not have been born just to suffer at the hands of one of the people who were supposed to love them most. Abortion is not an answer but a very last resort. I think that women who know they either have NO desire to have children or are not mentally stable enough to raise a child without possibly harming, maiming, torturing or murdering him or her should seek permanent forms of birth control.

If we were all created ideally, women who would see their daughters for crack, or their sons for a car would be infertile and women who had love just oozing out of their pores for a child that may never be would be natural mothers.

However FGM is not biased, it is never good, it serves no purpose other than to cause blatant harm upon a little girl for no other reason than because she is not allowed to enjoy intercourse. How does one relate to the other?

Abortion is brutal, no doubt. But in comparison being FORCED by your parents to endure mutilation and shame for your gender is vastly different than making the ill reached decision to abort your embryo (as the majority of all abortions occur before the baby is a fetus). The latter requires a LOT more personal responsibility.