Kenneth Roy
Joan McAlpine
is coming
to get me
Media News
More about Megrahi
Donald Murray
I fear for my friend from
university. I fear his son
may soon reach for a bomb
John Cameron
Norman St John-Stevas
Dick Mungin
George Robertson
will wait a long time
for an apology
The Cafe
Rude Mr Jardine
Eileen Reid
When is it
morally right
to intervene?
Alan Fisher
A last-minute candidate?
Lorn Macintyre
‘Are there any
trees close
to your property?’
Vacancies
Fancy becoming a chair?
24.02.12
No. 518
John Cameron
In the last of a series of bitter debates on abortion a quarter of a century ago, the General Assembly finally agreed to support the stance of the British Medical Association. This has remained its default position but as the motion’s proposer I had the word ‘abortionist’ added to my long list of undesirable personal and professional qualities. In fact as I wrote in an earlier article celebrating the introduction of the pill, I grew up in the era of backstreet abortionists and was absolutely adamant it must be the girl’s call.
Despite termination remaining an extremely controversial subject in America, the US Supreme Court has been a beacon of light in the enduring debate. In 1992 it reaffirmed the need for a girl to be ‘apprised of the health risks of abortion and childbirth’ in view of the psychological consequences of termination. However the hysteria the issue attracts makes it difficult to ensure ‘the information to be made available to the woman is truthful and not misleading’.
The US Court of Appeals is hearing a case ‘Planned Parenthood v Rounds’, involving a South Dakota statute requiring informed consent before a girl undergoes an abortion.
The case is focused on whether she must be told that abortion increases the risk of suicide and whether that is truly factual or simply another bit of scare-mongering.
In the past, while acknowledging it is a ‘painful moral decision’ the court could find no reliable data to delineate suicide as having resulted solely from the operation.
The termination often occurred as a result of abandonment or problems with the baby and it was not clear if she would be just as at risk if forced to continue with the pregnancy.
There is ample proof that giving up a child for adoption or struggling to raise a child as a single mother in poor living conditions may trigger suicide. However the anti-choice brigade have collected psychiatric papers purporting to link abortion directly to suicide and the court must decide if the case has been made.
As a pastor I know only too well that some girls come to regret their decision but having read the papers I think it is still just another bit of pejorative scare-mongering.
SR Extra
I must send my old professor something of Scotland. But what?
Click here for
Anne Keenan
The paragraph you are
about to read is just
the sanitised version
Eileen Reid
This opening paragraph will likely be one of the most grotesque you have read, it is certainly one of the most upsetting I have written. And this is the sanitised version. Please don’t turn away. Every day in many countries of the world, a girl between the age of 5 and 12 years old, will be having her legs held apart by an elderly female relative. A surgical implement of some sort is then used to cut off her inner labia and clitoris. The gashing wound and most of the vagina is then sewn up (a small hole left for urination and menstruation) and her legs then tied together to prevent them from moving, thus facilitating the formation of scar tissue.
When the woman gets married, her stitched vagina lets her new husband know that she is still a virgin. It is his job to enlarge her vagina, usually over a period of weeks. Sometimes midwives have to assist in this process. When the woman gives birth, she has to be cut open in order to allow delivery then sewn back up again.
Now, why would any sane person visit such horror on their own child? Odd as it sounds, there are ‘arguments’ in favour of female genital mutilation (FGM). These include: that the practice is ‘traditional’; that it is a religious requirement; that it is a rite of passage; that it improves marriage prospects; that it prevents promiscuity; that it prevents excessive clitoral; that it enhances male sexual pleasure. In the interests of fairness we should also mention that FGM is often supported because it can be used apparently to treat lesbianism, masturbation, hysteria, and epilepsy. The factual errors of these arguments require no further comment. Morally speaking, in the interests of politeness, I will say nothing more about them.
FGM is common in 26 of 43 African countries, but it is most prevalent in Egypt, Mali, Eritrea, the Central African Republic, the Sudan and Somali. It is also practised in Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, as well as parts of Asia, including parts of India, Indonesia and Malaysia. Moreover, FGM has increased in recent decades in western countries such as Australia, Canada, the US, New Zealand and England, as some immigrants have brought the barbaric practice with them.
FGM is illegal in these countries, and most of Europe. Moreover, since 2003 it has been illegal in the UK to take girls abroad to be ‘cut’. The maximum penalty is 14 years. However, it is estimated that at least 2,000 schoolgirls are taken abroad during the summer holidays to be mutilated despite these tough laws, and according to some experts, 15,000 British girls are at risk. No-one has ever been prosecuted in this country. Girls return from holiday in severe pain, with potentially life-threatening bleeding, infection, and long-term damage to their reproductive heath, and are treated in UK hospitals, particularly in London. No one can be in any doubt about how these injuries were sustained. Yet to reiterate – no-one in the UK has ever been prosecuted. Why not?
At least two generations in the West have been raised on the doctrine
of moral relativism, and it has led to uneasiness about cultural interference. The idea is that the West has no business imposing its values on communities which are culturally distinct.
FGM is child abuse. And all child abuse is morally unacceptable. So why isn’t the practice loudly, clearly and universally condemned? Why hasn’t the law been enforced? I would suggest that one reason why FGM is low on the law-enforcers’ list of priorities is that there is no public demand for action for three reasons. Firstly, unintentional discrimination: the victims are not white middle-class girls. The second is sexism. FGM is on a par with selective female abortion. We know the answer to the question: would the practice be tolerated if victims of such grotesque genital mutilation were male? The third is residual and misguided cultural and moral relativism which often serves to mask reasons one and two.
At least two generations in the West have been raised on the doctrine of moral relativism, and it has led to uneasiness about cultural interference. The idea is that the West has no business imposing its values on communities which are culturally distinct. This line of thought is and has been useful for curbing imperialist tendencies, but the unintended consequence has been a licence to ignore genuine moral obligations to others. The philosopher Bernard Williams described moral relativism as ‘possibly the most absurd view to have been advanced in moral philosophy’. It is not just pernicious (attitudes to FGM being a case in point); it is intellectually incoherent. It is worth elaborating on this point.
Relativism holds that nothing is objectively right or wrong: each community or society chooses what is morally acceptable in accordance with its traditions. Williams identifies three distinct claims of this position: first, that ‘morally acceptable’ can mean only ‘morally acceptable in a given society’. Second, that ‘acceptable for a given society’ means ‘this practice works for them’. Finally – a conclusion drawn from the first two: it is morally wrong for people in one society to interfere with the values and practices of another.
The problem is that these claims are inconsistent – they cannot all be true at once. If the relativist’s first two claims are true, then the desired conclusion must be false, because in the first two claims what is deemed morally acceptable is so only within a given society or community. But the relativist’s conclusion is that it is wrong for all societies regardless of cultural differences to interfere with others despite originally stating that nothing is right or wrong for all human beings or cultures. Consequently, if the first two premises are right, then the conclusion that none of us should ever interfere in other cultures cannot be right.
There is no doubt that in the past colonialists interfered in local practices and customs in the most abominable way. But in the case of FGM, the replacement dogma of relativism has prevented successful eradication of practices we know in our heart of hearts to be wrong. Uneasiness about interfering in other cultural or traditional activity must not hinder the authorities from clamping down on this totally unjustifiable, excruciatingly painful, and psychologically crippling operation on female children, and the public ought to start demanding that they do so.
As a realist I would say this: there are no grounds whatsoever for the practice of female genital mutilation: it is wrong now, was wrong 3,000 years ago, will be wrong in the future – anywhere in the world where it was and is practiced.
Eileen Reid is head of widening participation, Glasgow School of Art,
writing here in a personal capacity
morally right
to intervene?
Alan Fisher
A last-minute candidate?
Lorn Macintyre
‘Are there any
trees close
to your property?’
Vacancies
Fancy becoming a chair?
24.02.12
No. 518
John Cameron
In the last of a series of bitter debates on abortion a quarter of a century ago, the General Assembly finally agreed to support the stance of the British Medical Association. This has remained its default position but as the motion’s proposer I had the word ‘abortionist’ added to my long list of undesirable personal and professional qualities. In fact as I wrote in an earlier article celebrating the introduction of the pill, I grew up in the era of backstreet abortionists and was absolutely adamant it must be the girl’s call.
Despite termination remaining an extremely controversial subject in America, the US Supreme Court has been a beacon of light in the enduring debate. In 1992 it reaffirmed the need for a girl to be ‘apprised of the health risks of abortion and childbirth’ in view of the psychological consequences of termination. However the hysteria the issue attracts makes it difficult to ensure ‘the information to be made available to the woman is truthful and not misleading’.
The US Court of Appeals is hearing a case ‘Planned Parenthood v Rounds’, involving a South Dakota statute requiring informed consent before a girl undergoes an abortion.
The case is focused on whether she must be told that abortion increases the risk of suicide and whether that is truly factual or simply another bit of scare-mongering.
In the past, while acknowledging it is a ‘painful moral decision’ the court could find no reliable data to delineate suicide as having resulted solely from the operation.
The termination often occurred as a result of abandonment or problems with the baby and it was not clear if she would be just as at risk if forced to continue with the pregnancy.
There is ample proof that giving up a child for adoption or struggling to raise a child as a single mother in poor living conditions may trigger suicide. However the anti-choice brigade have collected psychiatric papers purporting to link abortion directly to suicide and the court must decide if the case has been made.
As a pastor I know only too well that some girls come to regret their decision but having read the papers I think it is still just another bit of pejorative scare-mongering.
SR Extra
I must send my old professor something of Scotland. But what?
Click here for
Anne Keenan
The paragraph you are
about to read is just
the sanitised version
Eileen Reid
This opening paragraph will likely be one of the most grotesque you have read, it is certainly one of the most upsetting I have written. And this is the sanitised version. Please don’t turn away. Every day in many countries of the world, a girl between the age of 5 and 12 years old, will be having her legs held apart by an elderly female relative. A surgical implement of some sort is then used to cut off her inner labia and clitoris. The gashing wound and most of the vagina is then sewn up (a small hole left for urination and menstruation) and her legs then tied together to prevent them from moving, thus facilitating the formation of scar tissue.
When the woman gets married, her stitched vagina lets her new husband know that she is still a virgin. It is his job to enlarge her vagina, usually over a period of weeks. Sometimes midwives have to assist in this process. When the woman gives birth, she has to be cut open in order to allow delivery then sewn back up again.
Now, why would any sane person visit such horror on their own child? Odd as it sounds, there are ‘arguments’ in favour of female genital mutilation (FGM). These include: that the practice is ‘traditional’; that it is a religious requirement; that it is a rite of passage; that it improves marriage prospects; that it prevents promiscuity; that it prevents excessive clitoral; that it enhances male sexual pleasure. In the interests of fairness we should also mention that FGM is often supported because it can be used apparently to treat lesbianism, masturbation, hysteria, and epilepsy. The factual errors of these arguments require no further comment. Morally speaking, in the interests of politeness, I will say nothing more about them.
FGM is common in 26 of 43 African countries, but it is most prevalent in Egypt, Mali, Eritrea, the Central African Republic, the Sudan and Somali. It is also practised in Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, as well as parts of Asia, including parts of India, Indonesia and Malaysia. Moreover, FGM has increased in recent decades in western countries such as Australia, Canada, the US, New Zealand and England, as some immigrants have brought the barbaric practice with them.
FGM is illegal in these countries, and most of Europe. Moreover, since 2003 it has been illegal in the UK to take girls abroad to be ‘cut’. The maximum penalty is 14 years. However, it is estimated that at least 2,000 schoolgirls are taken abroad during the summer holidays to be mutilated despite these tough laws, and according to some experts, 15,000 British girls are at risk. No-one has ever been prosecuted in this country. Girls return from holiday in severe pain, with potentially life-threatening bleeding, infection, and long-term damage to their reproductive heath, and are treated in UK hospitals, particularly in London. No one can be in any doubt about how these injuries were sustained. Yet to reiterate – no-one in the UK has ever been prosecuted. Why not?
At least two generations in the West have been raised on the doctrine
of moral relativism, and it has led to uneasiness about cultural interference. The idea is that the West has no business imposing its values on communities which are culturally distinct.
FGM is child abuse. And all child abuse is morally unacceptable. So why isn’t the practice loudly, clearly and universally condemned? Why hasn’t the law been enforced? I would suggest that one reason why FGM is low on the law-enforcers’ list of priorities is that there is no public demand for action for three reasons. Firstly, unintentional discrimination: the victims are not white middle-class girls. The second is sexism. FGM is on a par with selective female abortion. We know the answer to the question: would the practice be tolerated if victims of such grotesque genital mutilation were male? The third is residual and misguided cultural and moral relativism which often serves to mask reasons one and two.
At least two generations in the West have been raised on the doctrine of moral relativism, and it has led to uneasiness about cultural interference. The idea is that the West has no business imposing its values on communities which are culturally distinct. This line of thought is and has been useful for curbing imperialist tendencies, but the unintended consequence has been a licence to ignore genuine moral obligations to others. The philosopher Bernard Williams described moral relativism as ‘possibly the most absurd view to have been advanced in moral philosophy’. It is not just pernicious (attitudes to FGM being a case in point); it is intellectually incoherent. It is worth elaborating on this point.
Relativism holds that nothing is objectively right or wrong: each community or society chooses what is morally acceptable in accordance with its traditions. Williams identifies three distinct claims of this position: first, that ‘morally acceptable’ can mean only ‘morally acceptable in a given society’. Second, that ‘acceptable for a given society’ means ‘this practice works for them’. Finally – a conclusion drawn from the first two: it is morally wrong for people in one society to interfere with the values and practices of another.
The problem is that these claims are inconsistent – they cannot all be true at once. If the relativist’s first two claims are true, then the desired conclusion must be false, because in the first two claims what is deemed morally acceptable is so only within a given society or community. But the relativist’s conclusion is that it is wrong for all societies regardless of cultural differences to interfere with others despite originally stating that nothing is right or wrong for all human beings or cultures. Consequently, if the first two premises are right, then the conclusion that none of us should ever interfere in other cultures cannot be right.
There is no doubt that in the past colonialists interfered in local practices and customs in the most abominable way. But in the case of FGM, the replacement dogma of relativism has prevented successful eradication of practices we know in our heart of hearts to be wrong. Uneasiness about interfering in other cultural or traditional activity must not hinder the authorities from clamping down on this totally unjustifiable, excruciatingly painful, and psychologically crippling operation on female children, and the public ought to start demanding that they do so.
As a realist I would say this: there are no grounds whatsoever for the practice of female genital mutilation: it is wrong now, was wrong 3,000 years ago, will be wrong in the future – anywhere in the world where it was and is practiced.
Eileen Reid is head of widening participation, Glasgow School of Art,
writing here in a personal capacity
24.02.12
No. 518
John CameronDespite termination remaining an extremely controversial subject in America, the US Supreme Court has been a beacon of light in the enduring debate. In 1992 it reaffirmed the need for a girl to be ‘apprised of the health risks of abortion and childbirth’ in view of the psychological consequences of termination. However the hysteria the issue attracts makes it difficult to ensure ‘the information to be made available to the woman is truthful and not misleading’.
The US Court of Appeals is hearing a case ‘Planned Parenthood v Rounds’, involving a South Dakota statute requiring informed consent before a girl undergoes an abortion.
The case is focused on whether she must be told that abortion increases the risk of suicide and whether that is truly factual or simply another bit of scare-mongering.
In the past, while acknowledging it is a ‘painful moral decision’ the court could find no reliable data to delineate suicide as having resulted solely from the operation.
The termination often occurred as a result of abandonment or problems with the baby and it was not clear if she would be just as at risk if forced to continue with the pregnancy.
There is ample proof that giving up a child for adoption or struggling to raise a child as a single mother in poor living conditions may trigger suicide. However the anti-choice brigade have collected psychiatric papers purporting to link abortion directly to suicide and the court must decide if the case has been made.
As a pastor I know only too well that some girls come to regret their decision but having read the papers I think it is still just another bit of pejorative scare-mongering.
I must send my old professor something of Scotland. But what?Click here for
Anne Keenan
Now, why would any sane person visit such horror on their own child? Odd as it sounds, there are ‘arguments’ in favour of female genital mutilation (FGM). These include: that the practice is ‘traditional’; that it is a religious requirement; that it is a rite of passage; that it improves marriage prospects; that it prevents promiscuity; that it prevents excessive clitoral; that it enhances male sexual pleasure. In the interests of fairness we should also mention that FGM is often supported because it can be used apparently to treat lesbianism, masturbation, hysteria, and epilepsy. The factual errors of these arguments require no further comment. Morally speaking, in the interests of politeness, I will say nothing more about them.
FGM is common in 26 of 43 African countries, but it is most prevalent in Egypt, Mali, Eritrea, the Central African Republic, the Sudan and Somali. It is also practised in Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, as well as parts of Asia, including parts of India, Indonesia and Malaysia. Moreover, FGM has increased in recent decades in western countries such as Australia, Canada, the US, New Zealand and England, as some immigrants have brought the barbaric practice with them.
FGM is illegal in these countries, and most of Europe. Moreover, since 2003 it has been illegal in the UK to take girls abroad to be ‘cut’. The maximum penalty is 14 years. However, it is estimated that at least 2,000 schoolgirls are taken abroad during the summer holidays to be mutilated despite these tough laws, and according to some experts, 15,000 British girls are at risk. No-one has ever been prosecuted in this country. Girls return from holiday in severe pain, with potentially life-threatening bleeding, infection, and long-term damage to their reproductive heath, and are treated in UK hospitals, particularly in London. No one can be in any doubt about how these injuries were sustained. Yet to reiterate – no-one in the UK has ever been prosecuted. Why not?
of moral relativism, and it has led to uneasiness about cultural interference. The idea is that the West has no business imposing its values on communities which are culturally distinct.
At least two generations in the West have been raised on the doctrine of moral relativism, and it has led to uneasiness about cultural interference. The idea is that the West has no business imposing its values on communities which are culturally distinct. This line of thought is and has been useful for curbing imperialist tendencies, but the unintended consequence has been a licence to ignore genuine moral obligations to others. The philosopher Bernard Williams described moral relativism as ‘possibly the most absurd view to have been advanced in moral philosophy’. It is not just pernicious (attitudes to FGM being a case in point); it is intellectually incoherent. It is worth elaborating on this point.
Relativism holds that nothing is objectively right or wrong: each community or society chooses what is morally acceptable in accordance with its traditions. Williams identifies three distinct claims of this position: first, that ‘morally acceptable’ can mean only ‘morally acceptable in a given society’. Second, that ‘acceptable for a given society’ means ‘this practice works for them’. Finally – a conclusion drawn from the first two: it is morally wrong for people in one society to interfere with the values and practices of another.
The problem is that these claims are inconsistent – they cannot all be true at once. If the relativist’s first two claims are true, then the desired conclusion must be false, because in the first two claims what is deemed morally acceptable is so only within a given society or community. But the relativist’s conclusion is that it is wrong for all societies regardless of cultural differences to interfere with others despite originally stating that nothing is right or wrong for all human beings or cultures. Consequently, if the first two premises are right, then the conclusion that none of us should ever interfere in other cultures cannot be right.
There is no doubt that in the past colonialists interfered in local practices and customs in the most abominable way. But in the case of FGM, the replacement dogma of relativism has prevented successful eradication of practices we know in our heart of hearts to be wrong. Uneasiness about interfering in other cultural or traditional activity must not hinder the authorities from clamping down on this totally unjustifiable, excruciatingly painful, and psychologically crippling operation on female children, and the public ought to start demanding that they do so.
As a realist I would say this: there are no grounds whatsoever for the practice of female genital mutilation: it is wrong now, was wrong 3,000 years ago, will be wrong in the future – anywhere in the world where it was and is practiced.
writing here in a personal capacity
