AN APPRAISAL OF JOHN MAKIE’S MORAL NIHILISM: FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION

Introduction

From the outset of history, mankind has developed heterogeneity of practices which are intricately related to complex social orders and to traditional codes of behavior. For centuries now, many of these, especially those with deleterious effects, were gradually void while others remained. Out of those practices one which still survives, is the practice of female circumcision according to Hilda Taba, with its ages and its serious health complexity.[1] Then circumcision was seen and considered as a thing of pride, of cultural and religious value and so on. Those who accepted it justified their claims in the social desire to terminate or reduce sexual arousal in women so as to stop or reduce promiscuity, pre-marital sex and adultery. However, this has turn out to be not only a major social problem, but also a public health concern thus attracting not only the attention of health workers, but also that of religious leaders, families, communities and even individuals because of the physical and emotional effects of the practice on women, young girls, and babies.[2]

The heart of the controversy lies in finding a balance between a society's cultural self-determination, and the protection of individuals from the violation of their human rights. However, it also seems to generate such concerns because of the struggle for women liberation by feminist. The thrust of the debate seems therefore to have a social-political undertone rather than a purely ethical concern; thus generating heated public debates. Many people have given in their time and talent to a critical analysis and to a cerebral appraisal of the action, since this issue has strike numerous nerves, challenged not only the fundamental understanding of body, self, sexuality, family, and morality but also plays upon tensions relating to cultural difference, and the relationship between women and "tradition". Evidently, the current controversy surrounding female genital operations is therefore inextricably linked to other contemporary debates that concern the nature of universal "human rights" and the ways such rights include or exclude women. Besides all these, there is also the question of the moral grounds for the action, the procedures and the end of the action. Thus, a quest arises: Is it ethical to circumcise or not? Is it morally right or wrong? Triggered by these concerns, this paper aims at using John Markie’s moral Nihilism to appraise female genital mutilation. And to achieve this set goal, we shall progress in two sections. The first shall be devoted to a methodic exposition of female circumcision, the methods and forms of female circumcision and the merits and demerits of the action. The second part shall be devoted to expounding Mackie’s moral nihilism and applying it in evaluating the act and from there, we shall evaluate and conclude.

Historical Appendix

As stated by Leonard J. Kouba and Judith Muasher in the article “Female Circumcision in Africa: An Overview” (1985), there is no definitive evidence as to where, how and when Female circumcision began and how it was done. Alison Slack in her article: “Female Circumcision: A Critical Appraisal” acknowledged the difficulty in dating this practice said that: “although chronicles and statistical informations are difficult to find, it is believed that female circumcision has been practiced for nearly 2500 years, prior to advent of  Islam or Christianity. The cultural and geographical origins of the practice are unknown”.

However, a general concurrency favours the view that circumcision in general male or female dates back to ancientness and was often perform as a ritual a way of "purifying" (making an individual a member of a society) individuals and society by reducing the rate of promiscuity and sexual pleasure; since human promiscuity was seen as dirty or unclean in some societies. Dya Eldin M. Elsayed et.al. in the article “Female Genital Mutilation and Ethical Issues”  confirmed this point by saying that Female circumcision is grounded in the social desire in terminating or reducing the tendency of sexual arousal in women so that they will be much less likely to engage in pre-marital sexual relationship or adultery. Therefore, in societies were this practice was seen as a means of purification, cutting off the pleasure-producing parts was the obvious way to "purify" someone. Later, it was viewed in a religious sense as a sacrifice of "sinful" human enjoyment in this earthly life, for the sake of holiness in the afterlife. The Jews adopted circumcision because of this religious undertone namely: “as a religious ritual, and continues to preserve it. But even with this, while the Jews were busy enacting laws to promote circumcision, the Romans and the Greeks were prohibiting it. However, this custom saw many reformations.

Between 1865 to 1870 in England and USA, a new dimension was taken. Circumcision was seen as part of medical practice quite different from the ancient notion. Literature has it that circumcision was imposed in an attempt to prevent masturbation without any scientific studies to know its efficacy and safety. Recently, many committees and associations have risen to educate people on the dangers of circumcision starting from the ad hoc committee of American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), The Canadian Pediatric Society (CPS) and many other governmental and nongovernmental organizations. Today, female circumcision is practiced in most continents of the world including Africa and America. Female circumcision, like male circumcision, was originally an initiation rite in Africa which signals that a child was passing from puberty into adulthood thus becoming a full member of the community or tribe.[3] In fact, for others the custom and the initiation rite itself were part of tribal psychology and this operation is still regarded, in some societies, as the very essence of an institution which has enormous educational, social, moral, and religious implications quite apart from the operation itself.[4] For the present, it is impossible for a member of a tribe to imagine an initiation without clitoridectomy. Therefore, the quashing off the surgical element in this custom means to many societies the abolition of the whole institution since for such societies, clitoridectomy, like Jewish circumcision, is a mere bodily mutilation which, however, is regarded as the condition essential condition of the whole teaching of tribal law, religion, and morality. Although custom no longer necessarily forms the backbone of tribal law, female circumcision remains an African custom and is still cradle in the foundations and sociological structures of the societies where it is practiced.[5]

In most Nigerian societies, female circumcision has been seen as part of the culture of the people. As of the year 2000, the Efik of Creek Town, Cross River State still practiced female circumcision very faithfully as one of the rites of initiating people into the adulthood and those who did not pass through that stage were abused by age grade. After the young woman has been circumcised, she will be taken to the fatting room, cared for by the elderly women and taught holistically; the culture of the people, how to cook the traditional dishes and how to be a good house wife. This period often ended with a big ceremony and this brings both pride and dignity to the young maiden and the entire family. I had an encounter with a young lady of 22 years of age and she hail from ishan tribe of Edo state, which she told me that she was circumcised. So, as at the year 1996, there was such ritual still practiced in that part of the world.  

Female circumcision defined

The World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF in April 1997 defined female circumcision as all procedures (ritual) involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs whether for cultural or other non-therapeutic reasons. Traditional circumcisers or specialist use a blade or razor, with or without anesthesia. The age at which it is conducted varies. They are three major types of circumcision and Health effects differ also according to the procedure used in doing that. Most common effect includes: chronic pain, cysts, inability to get pregnant, complications during childbirth and fatal bleeding. However, this is not to say that they are no known health benefits. Most of its opponents argue that this practice is rooted in gender inequality, attempts to control women's sexual tendency. However, even among women, there are some others who see it as an honor, they are proud to be circumcised. These are the ones who initiate it and carry out the operation.

Forms of female circumcision

The practice of female circumcision can be classified into four basic forms that vary in degrees of severity. However as Rogaias Abusharaf has rightly pointed out, each form of circumcision involves a different level of physical change as.^[6]

1. Ritualistic circumcision: This is the first and least severe form. Here, the clitoris is merely nicked. This causes bleeding, but little mutilation or long term damage.
2. Sunna: sunna is an Arabic word which means tradition. This form is mainly done by the Muslims and it involves the removal of the clitoral prepuce (the outer layer of skin over the clitoris), sometimes called the "hood"; the gland and body of the clitoris remain intact. Occasionally, the tip of the clitoris itself is removed. Sunna has been equated with male circumcision, because the clitoris itself is generally not damaged.

There are two types of sunna, mild sunna and modified sunna

a.      Mild Sunna: The pricking of the prepuce of the clitoris with a sharp instrument, such as a pin, which leaves little or no damage.

b.      Modified Sunna: The partial or total excision of the body of the clitoris.

3. Excision or clitoridectomy: This form is a more harsh form of the practice but the most common form. It involves the removal of the gland of the clitoris usually the entire clitoris and often parts of the labia minora as well.^[7]
4. Infibulation or Pharaonic circumcision: This is the most severe form of the practice. Virtually all of the external female genitalia are removed. The remaining raw edges of the labia majora are then sewn together, leaving only a tiny opening, to allow for the passing of urine and menstrual fluid. Dahabo Musa, a Somali woman, in a poem described infibulation as the "three feminine sorrows": the procedure itself, the wedding night when the woman is cut open, then childbirth when she is cut again.^[8]
5. Introcision: The enlargement of the vaginal orifice by tearing it downwards manually or with a sharp instrument.

While all five forms of female circumcision have been reported in Africa, excision and infibulation are the most common forms. Although infibulation is commonly known as "pharaonic circumcision," there is little evidence to indicate that it was practiced by Pharaonic Egyptians and its origin remains unclear.^[9] The title is claimed to have been applied by the Sudanese when the practice of infibulation spread from Upper Egypt into the northern Sudan area. Conversely, in Egypt it is often termed "Sudanese" circumcision.

Merits of female circumcision

Some of the advantages of circumcision include: satisfying the sexual pleasure for men, preservation of virginity, ensuring safety during intercourse and childbirth, control of pre-marital sex and infidelity in marriage. Some have added that the clitoris is an aggressive organ when the woman is sexually aroused because the center of sexual desire is the clitoris. Excision is thus necessary to protect the woman against her over-sexed nature, saving her from temptation, suspicion and disgrace while preserving her chastity. Circumcision helps preserve virgins because once the clitoris is mutilated, the sexual desire will decrease and the maidens will be saved from the temptation of desiring sex and its pleasure, thus still stay put till marriage especially in societies where virginity is an absolute pre-requisite for marriage and where an extra marital relationship provokes a severe penalty.

Some men reports that they enjoy sex more with circumcised women. In some societies, the clitoris is considered unpleasant to both sight and touch and it is a sign of maturity when a woman’s “ugly genitalia” have been removed thus the woman will have good mental and physical health. Infibulations help women’s genitals to be smooth, dry and without odor. Men also seem to enjoy penetrating an infibulation, because of the smooth appearance of an infibulated vulva; in a way, it is enhances beauty of the surface area.^[10] Infibulation increases hygiene because after sex, there is normally some friction which can cause lacerations and increase risk of infection, so for women to regulate this, they often introduce substances into the vagina to reduce lubrication. Some of such substances may not be so hygienic but with infibulations, the vulva is smoothen and kept dry and odorless.

Demerits of female circumcision

The opponents of Female genital mutilation are of the view that the health benefits do not justify the act since the immediate, short-term and late complications prove so. Their claim is based on the premise that the practitioners have no medical training; even the tools they used are not sterilized. The use of non medical equipment increases the pains of the women, thus violate their human right. Also, this action can leave the victim with painful menstruation (especially infibulation), because the menstrual flow has been obstructed. There may be difficult and painful urination since the urine may collect underneath the scar and cause small stones to form. There may be damage to the urethra and bladder, leading to infections and incontinence, pains during sex and infertility. Women often report reduced sexual feelings which are a serious violation of their right to enjoy sex.[11] Psychological complications and feelings of shame and betrayal can develop.

Many argued that it a torture and degrading, inflicting pains on the women and as such, it is disrespect for the dignity and sacredness of the human body in general and a dehumanization of women in particular.[12] Other people also considered that female circumcision does not confer any health benefits and is not even an essential part of any major religious or tradition. Such people are of the view that the practice rather than benefit, it has deleterious effects on health and as such should be abolished.[13] Sami went ahead to posit that for some people, male and female circumcision two different thing, while the male own is ritualistic with less pains, the female own has no such history but has much pains and the pains dehumanizes hence the practice should be stopped.

Myths of Female Circumcision

The circumciser and those that practices this rituals do made the young lady to be circumcised to believe that if she is not circumcised her clitoris will grow very long and sweep the ground. That during the circumcision process if the girl to circumcised shakes her hands, cry or blinks her eye-lids she will be declare coward, she needs to withstand all pain. Through circumcision the young girl shed blood to the ancestors, so as to have link and blessing from her ancestors. The first child of the uncircumcised lady will not survive, because she has not linked herself with the ancestors.

John Mackie’s Moral Nihilism

In his book Ethics: inventing right and wrong, Mackie argued for moral nihilism. Moral nihilism argues that just as there is no such thing as phlogiston, there is no such thing as moral goodness, rightness, wrongness, duty, obligation, or any other moral notion. Mackie argues that there are no objective values; values are not “part of the fabric of the world”. He holds that certain values would have to be objective to exist at all. Objective values are all moral value, be it moral goodness, rightness and wrongness, duty, obligation, an action’s being rotten or contemptible, and so on. Some non-moral values on the other hand includes: aesthetic values, beauty, various kinds of artistic merit.

In The subjectivity of values, Mackie put to the fore four arguments in favor of moral nihilism:

a)      The argument from relativity.

b)      The argument from queerness.

c)      An argument appealing to the notion of supervenience.

d)      An argument involving alternate explanations of the genesis of our moral beliefs.

Argument from Queerness

Mackie argued against the existence of phlogiston by stating that:

1.      Conceptual claim: If phlogiston existed, it would have to be stored in all flammable bodies and released during combustion.

2.      Substantive claim: There isn’t anything that is stored in all flammable bodies and released during combustion.

3.      Conclusion: Phlogiston does not exist.

Mackie’s argument from queerness in application to moral values could be interpreted as follows:

1.      Conceptual claim: If moral values existed, they would have to be objectively prescriptive.

2.      Substantive claim: Nothing in the world is objectively prescriptive.

3.      Conclusion: Moral values do not exist.

By applying the standard from categorical syllogism, Mackie proved that there is no such thing as moral values. This is the root of moral nihilism. Mackie insists that a claim to “objective, intrinsic, prescriptivity” has been incorporated in the basic, conventional, meanings of moral terms.[14] Therefore, to say that something is objectively prescriptive is to say that it has “to-be-doneness” built into it. This is equivalent to the claim that recognition of an objectively prescriptive feature necessarily motivates one to act in the way prescribed by that feature.

Mackie’s claim reveals also that if there were objectively prescriptive values, then they would be entities or qualities or relations of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe.[15]

Plato’s Forms give a dramatic picture of what [objectively prescriptive] values would have to be; since the Form of the Good is such that knowledge of it provides the knower with both a direction and an overriding motive. This means that if a thing is good, it will necessarily tell the person who knows this to pursue it and will in fact make him to pursue it. An objective good would be sought by anyone who was acquainted with it, not because of any contingent fact that this person, or every person, is so constituted that he desires this end, but just because the end has “pursuedness” somehow built into it. Similarly, if there were objective principles of right and wrong, any wrong (possible) course of action would have not to be “doneness” somehow built into it.[16] Apart from this, if we were aware of objectively prescriptive values, it would have to be by some special faculty of moral perception or intuition, utterly different from our ordinary ways of knowing everything else. This led Mackie to conclude that we have good reason to doubt that any objective prescriptive features exist.

John Mackie views the sole function of morality to be that of counteracting the limitations of men’s sympathies.[17] Other normative theories cannot adequately serve this function, not even Act Utilitarianism, hence they should be rejected. He arrived at this by first ascertaining that there is no objective morality rather what we have is subjective of values with two points namely: the variableness of our beliefs about values and the queerness of value properties and claims that the reason people speak of morality as having objective properties is because of the failure to distinguish between “good” and “ought”. Having done this, Mackie arrived at the claim that universalizing moral values should not impose any rational constraint on choice of actions or defensible patterns of behavior. By this, normative ethics is not an attempt to discover and formulate principles for right or wrong, good or evil. However, it is pertinent to note how mistaken it would be to attribute “permissivism” to Mackie’s theory of moral nihilism because nihilism does not imply that everything is permitted. In fact, according to nihilism, there is no such thing as permissibility.

Application of John Mackie’s theory in circumcision

From the foregoing, Mackie is very clear about his position and claim that moral codes are relative and these codes are only arrived at by consensus. Moral norms regarding conduct have always differed from time to time and from place to place, both within and between different societies. However, it is not just the fact that different societies disagree about moral norms that cast suspicion on objective moral values, but that people seem to approve of the moral norms because they practice them rather than practice them because they approve of them. The attempt by people to judge actions to be right or wrong is as a result of their automatic reactions to them, not because they are a particular manifestation of a general moral principle. Hence people’s differing judgments cannot be accounted for as being consequences of general moral principles as applied to particular circumstances.

It is paramount explicitly the very beginning of this work that we are not in any way supporting Mackie’s arguments for moral nihilism in totality. However, we will use his arguments to sieve out some problems in the various positions of the female circumcision debate. To this end, we will at a point differ from Mackie to establish our own position. Following Mackie’s submission, one will argue that when people talk about female circumcision as having a moral implication, a good question to ask is: are these moral implications universal or relative? If by principle, there is no universal moral code, and the relative moral codes are arrived at by consensus and are approved as a moral code because it has been practiced by such societies, then no external body has the right to campaign against the practice of female circumcision. From our study, we see many people (especially human right activist), campaigning against female circumcision, positing that it is an offence against the human right of women. Such campaign is not justifiable. It is an imposition of moral norm on a society who did not consent to such code. Critics evidently judge the act of circumcising women to be wrong simply because of their reaction to it.

Following Mackie’s argument against anything like moral goodness or rightness, his argument against moral objectivity and his criteria for a practice to pass into a moral code, this paper argues and firmly posit that when critics say that it is not morally right or good to circumcise women, they are not raising a moral concern. A good question to ask is: if such concerns are not moral, what are they? This paper views the female circumcision debate as being more of a political rather than a moral issue since there is no objective moral code but relative codes which are arrived at by consensus and approved after it must have been practiced and not practice them because it has been approved. When critics try to make circumcision a moral issue, they are trying to make people practice a moral code because it has been approved which is in itself to squash their cultural and moral freedom as a people.

Our major claim in this paper is therefore that the female circumcision debate is not only a moral issue but also has within it, an embedded socio-political interest. Different from Mackie who claimed that there is no universal moral norm, we argue that even if we should accept that there is no universal moral code, such claims does not translate to an absence of a moral code. If there is therefore a moral code, we can as well fix female circumcision to be a moral argument; at least a relative moral debate since it has tempered with the interest of the women and cause them pain, often against their wish; and this is why we think female circumcision has generated a lot of heated public debate.

Another point we want to raise is that: it appears that those who spare-head this debate, either for or against, are motivated not only by the ethical concern which we have pointed out above, but also by some social and political interest which the topic seems to embed. This is a view which was already evident in the work of Christine J. Walley who argued that the current controversy surrounding female genital operations is inextricably linked to other contemporary debates that concern the nature of universal "human rights" and the ways such rights include, or exclude, women; the cultural rights of minorities as immigration increases in Euro-American countries; and ultimately, the meaning and viability of "multicultural" societies.[18] 

Our claim is supported by the politics in naming the act. For some, it is better called “ Circumcision”, others go with “Mutilation”, while others even prefer it be tagged “Torture” yet others settle for either “clitoridec-tomies” or “excision”, or “ infibulations” and these are just few without mentioning the names found in the languages of its practitioners.[19] We are not ignorant of the possibility to also argue that these names themselves, rather than point to a political quest, is an attempt to bring to the fore, the ethical concerns of agitators or even the possibility to argue that to see problem with naming borne form bias. However, the reason we see it as political is because the use of such terms has an implicit assumption that parents and relatives deliberately intends to harm children. A feminist for instance will see the act as a further attempt by men to continue to suppress women.[20] Therefore, we will see in such positions, an implicit political undertone whereby feminist critics of the practice will mask their interest in the ethical concern and rather than come out with their quest for the liberation of women from the oppression of the male folk, they will rather present the debate as a purely ethical issue. That is why they will argue from the point of view of the practice being an infliction on the human right of victims and they also drag the debate to the ethical realm in order to make it weighty.

If the critics of female circumcision argue that the practice can result to complications, this paper would argue that in any surgical operations complications may be a possible resultant. And just as we cannot stop all forms of surgery because of the possible complications, so also, it will be irrational to stop female circumcision on the grounds of the complications it might result. Just as we cannot say that because of the possible complications in an appendicitis operation we will stop operating patience of appendicitis, so also we cannot stop female circumcision on the grounds of complications. What we should rather advocate should be an improvement in the method and the introduction of modern surgical equipments. Furthermore, the claim of the human rights activist can also be debunked for just as we do not need the permission of the child to treat them of any ailment, so also we can argue that if circumcising them will be for their social benefits, then we have to do that. If people argue that it inflicts pains on the child, what of the times when pediatricians diagnose a new born baby to have a tongue-tie and will have to sweep under the tongue and snip the frenullum so that the baby can breast-feed. The enormous pains babies undergo and the cry that echoes from hospitals during this process! Following the same argument of human rights, we should let them be so as to avoid this cry and the baby will continue to have poor latching.

Another argument we will proffer is that given the history, process, advantages and the disadvantages of circumcision, there seem to be an enormous emotional argument both for and against the action.[21] But an intelligent argument should not consider the action as one of the operations in isolation of its cultural significance but, the defense of its representation as the “essence” of an institution which has enormous educational, social, moral, and religious implications. The moral code of a people is bound up with its custom and symbolizes the unification of the whole tribal organization. For that reason, when any traditional practice such as female circumcision has become so deeply engrained in the society and gain acceptance by virtually everyone, either passively or actively, it can serve as a power that helps to unite the community together and provide a source of cultural identity especially in small rural communities. So, the eradication of such a traditional practice can lead to disaster and confusion which might lead to the society losing its identity, defining principle, and the overall happiness of the greater number. However, this is not to say that we are in support of all the four forms of circumcision. We are mainly in support of the excision or clitoridectomy.

Recommendations

However, observing all of these, this paper is of the view that, since this practice has been ongoing for years, and since we have discovered that those who advocates for its abolition are raising not only a moral but also a socio-political concern, and since a careful follow of their arguments has revealed to us that their major problem is on the method and the after effect of the method,  this paper argues that rather than abolish a practice which has, over time gain so much root and has become part of a culture and identity of some communities, we should modernize the practice by introducing modern tools in the operation so as to reduce the health effect and the psychological trauma this may cause in future. We also propose that experts should be trained for the purpose of this operation and education should be given to both parent and guidance on the need to allow their children to freely choose to undergo this noble stage of initiation. There should be no compulsion so that, approaching with joy, they will embrace and value the need to be circumcised.

Hospitals should be equipped with modern equipment that will facilitate this operation with minimal pain.  During and after the operation, there should be available, anesthetics to help reduce the pains. Therefore, instead of spending the whole time trying to abolish the action, we should be thinking about ways to improve on the procedures, ways to reduce the pains on the side of the women.

Conclusion

This paper was aimed at using John Mackie’s moral nihilism to appraise female circumcision. To achieve this, the paper was sectioned into two, with the first trying to do an expose of female circumcision while the other part was dedicated to exposing Mackie’s moral nihilism and applying it to female circumcision has achieved. From the foregoing, we can say that the set goals have been achieved and this method has helped us to have a comprehensive understanding of both Mackie’s moral nihilism and female circumcision. From here, we went ahead to evaluate the female circumcision debate in the light of Mackie’s moral nihilism and our findings has led us to ascertain that the agitation against female circumcision is more of a socio-political concern than an ethical concern. This conclusion was drawn after a careful study of the major arguments against the act. Most of the reasons given especially those of the feminist and human right activists are simply evidences that the women are only interested in women libration. But as related to Mackie’s moral nihilism, the issue cannot be said to be a moral issues on the grounds that Moral nihilism, as proposed by Mackie does not admit of such things as phlogiston. This implies that there is no such thing as moral goodness, rightness, wrongness, duty, obligation, or any other moral notion. For Mackie, there are no objective values; values are not “part of the fabric of the world”. Therefore, such statements like: it is not morally right or good to circumcise a woman is not true.

Our research has also shown us that, since there is no objective moral value, the attempt by external bodies to stop the action of circumcising women in some communities is not legal. Mackie conceived only of relative moral codes. These codes are practice that has been done by a community for a long time and has been, by consensus, translated into moral codes. These moral codes are very relative and can change with time. So, when people intervene in a community’s practice which is not theirs, they are imposing their own code to that community. Therefore, it is very illegitimate for people who are not part of a community to advocate for the abolition of the practice female circumcision in a community practicing it. However, members of the community should be given proper education on the benefits of being circumcised and after such education, they should be given the freedom to choose either to be circumcised or not. And if such freedom has been given, such people have no right to agitate.

This paper is not ignorant of the fact that; in as much as female circumcision offers pleasurable consequences; it also has painful impact on those who are subjected to it. We have also brought to the fore that these consequences emanate from the procedures of the act. This therefore led us to offer some suggestions which could be summarized in one word: Modernization or upgrading of the practice. By this we mean that instead of insisting on the old method and procedures, we can introduce modern facilities and surgical equipments, which will make the surgery, like every other surgery, less harmful, less painful and also reduce the risk of future complications. This position was informed by the fact that female circumcision from our findings, has helped in reducing the amount of teen mothers, poverty stricken families with too many mouths to feed, and help one to focus more in life rather than meaningless and sometimes life ruining sex. With this the amount of unhappy homes, bad environments, and over population will be much easier to handle. In addition also, the rate of abortion will be controlled; child trafficking which is as a result of inability to care for the child and other sins committed against children and human beings will reduce. If our commendations are followed, the benefits will in due time outweigh the risks.

---

[1] Cf. Leonard Kouba and Judith Muasher, female circumcision in Africa; an overview

[2] Cf. Dya Eldin M. Elsayed et.al.http://www.docstoc.com/docs/115563396/Female-Genital-Mutilation-and-Ethical-Issues

[3] Cf. James H. Sequiera, "Female Circumcision and Infibulation." In The Lancet II: (1931), pp.1054-1055.

[4]Cf.  Jomo Kenyatta, Facing Mt. Kenya. (New York: Vintage Press, 1965), p.128.

[5] Cf.  Xavier Baronnet, “Concerning Excision," in Les Mutilations sexuelles feminines, Le Mariagep recoce. Geneva, Switzerland:S entinelles (1980) pp. 45-47.

[6]Cf. Rogaias Abusharaf, Female circumcision: Multicultural Perspectives (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania press, 2007), p. 27.

[7] Cf. Leonard J. Kouba and Judith MuasherSource: “Female Circumcision in Africa: An Overview” in  African Studies Review, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Mar., 1985), pp. 95-110 URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/524569 .Accessed: 11/01/2015 22:05

[8] Cf. Alison T. Slack, “Female Circumcision: A Critical Appraisal” in Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Nov., 1988), pp. 437-486 Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/761916 .Accessed: 11/01/2015 22:15

[9] Cf. Rose Oldfield Hayes, “Female Genital Mutilation, Fertility Control, Women's Roles, and the Patri-lineage in Moder Sudan: A Functional Analysis”, in American Ethnologist (1975), no. 2. p.621.

[10] Cf. Fadwa El Guindi, “Had this been your face, would you leave it as is? Female circumcision among the Nubians of Egypt” in Female circumcision: Multicultural Perspectives edited by Rogaias Abusharaf (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania press, 2007), p.27.

[11] Cf. Fran P. Hosken, Female Sexual Mutilations: The Facts and Proposals for Action ( Lexington, MA, Women' International Networks News, 1982), 21.

[12] Cf. Obioma Naemeka, “ African Women, Colonial discourses, and Imperialist Interventions: Female circumcision as Impertus” in Female circumcision and the politics of knowledge: African Women in Imperialist Discourses edited by Obioma Naemeka (London: Greenwood Publishing, 2005),P. 30.

[13]Cf. Sami Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh, “Male and Female Circumcission: the myth of the difference” in Female circumcision: Multicultural Perspectives edited by Rogaias Abusharaf (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania press, 2007), p. 47.

[14] Cf. John Mackie, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong (England: Penguin Books Ltd, 1977), pp. 108-109.

[15] Cf. John Mackie, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, p. 111.

[16] Cf. John Mackie, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong,  p. 112.

[17] Cf. John Mackie, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, p.108.

[18] Cf. Christine J. Walley, “Searching for Voices: Feminism, Anthropology, and the Global Debate over Female Genital Operations” in Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Aug., 1997) Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/656558 pdf, Accessed: 11/12/2015 22:45, P. 406.

[19] Cf. Obioma Naemeka, “African Women, Colonial discourses, and Imperialist Interventions: Female circumcision as Impertus” in Female circumcision and the politics of knowledge: African Women in Imperialist Discourses edited by Obioma Naemeka (London: Greenwood Publishing, 2005), p. 34.

[20] Cf. Brid Hehir, “FGM Crusade: With Feminists like this, who needs misogynists?” www.spiked-online.com accessed 3/1/2016.

[21] Cf. Maria Mottin-Sylla and Joelle Palmiori, Confronting Female Genital Mutilation: the role of youth and ICTs in changing Africa (Cape Town: Pambazuka Press, 2011), p. 5-16.