Procedures involving the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or injury to the female genital organs are termed either Female Circumcision or Female Genital Mutilation. Many feel this term circumcision is a euphemism is deem the procedure to be called by the more appropriate name, Female Genital Mutilation. “Mutilation” is technically accurate because most variants of the practices entail damage to or removal of healthy tissues. Yet, for most people, the term “mutilation” connotes purposeful harm and is tantamount to an allegation of e

To bring salient elements of the case into stark relief, one must allow three further assumptions. First, one must accept that X is of a normal frame of mind, i.e., she is psychologically fits and suffers from no recognizable psychological disorder involving, for instance, impulses for self-mutilation. She is also capable of understanding general health information and making day-to-day decisions. Second, it is important to assume that, in theory if not in practical application, X, like all women in the United States—enjoys full constitutional rights and has recourse to legal protection from persecution if she chooses not to undergo FC/FGM or if she wants to leave her cultural group. She also enjoys a full range of socioeconomic opportunities, including freedom to marry the person of her choice. (We may further assume that adults in the larger society are generally reluctant to choose circumcised woman as wives or sexual partners. Thus, X, understands that undergoing FC/FGM means that her choice of partners may be limited to those who share her traditional values.) One must assume, finally, that X enjoys medical technology and facilities that allow her doctors to perform the procedure safely and with minimal adverse health consequences. Presented in this way, the case for X raises the following question: Should the liberal society tolerate X’s choice to undergo FC/FGM and refrain from intervening with those who assist in the surgery?

Because this paper primarily focuses on Africa and its relation to the rest of the world, I will limit my assessment to African cultures. As an “outsider” I have not undergone the procedure myself, nor do a claim to have ever felt the type of pain or suffering those woman have. Yet, in my research I have read many accounts of African women and men offering both sides to the debate. Thus, I feel prepared and hope to give neither an ethnocentric nor culturally bias view.

While these two theories offer a single-standard approach, American public sentiment at times seems to reject both. Thus, one must consider three accounts of liberalism. The first is a philosophy developed by liberal philosophers Rawls and Walzer, “liberal cosmopolitanism.” Liberal cosmopolitanism recognizes the differences between liberal and nonliberal societies and views those differences as morally significant. Thus, in some cases, liberal moral standards must be used in evaluating cultural practices. Liberal cosmopolitanism draws a distinction between practices that violate basic or urgent human rights and those that do not. For them, basic or urgent human rights include the right to life and basic liberties, and the freedom from genocide, slavery or mass expulsion. Liberal cosmopoltanists are unwilling to allow liberal states to intervene in societies practicing illiberal practices, unless basic rights are infringed upon. A ban on illiberal practices in liberal societies, however, is permissible. What renders FC/FGM according to this theory has little to do with cultural justification. Instead, the theory looks at the amount of harm resulting from FC/FGM and then assesses whether those harms violate one’s basic human rights. Much of this evaluation depends on the political structure of the society in question.

FC/FGM affects approximately two million new girls each year. The practice is not limited to Africa but a majority of the cases take place there. Though those who choose to practice FC/FGM view it as a rite, many are being to claim the procedure goes against one’s human rights. The practice has come under increasing attack and activists are beginning to force changes. First, many women's groups is Africa, encouraged by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, outlawed the practice. Nevertheless, FC/FGM persisted, for those laws were seldom imposed. America and Euro

Some topics in this essay:
Rawls Walzer, Individuals African, Type III, Liberia Mali, Amendment VIII, United States�enjoys, Type IV, FC/FGM Circumcision, Genital Mutilation, Eyes” African, human rights, female genital, female genital mutilation, genital mutilation, practice fc/fgm, liberal feminists, genital mutilation african, universal declaration, declaration human, according liberal, universal declaration human, type iii, according liberal feminists, declaration human rights, mutilation african,