Circumcision is a touchy and controversial topic that has been sweeping our world and the religious and ethical views that come with it. Female circumcision is the practice of removing a female’s external genitalia—most notably, the clitoris and labia. This practice is common in Africa and the Middle East; in contrast, it is frowned upon in the Western hemisphere and even illegal in the UK. Female circumcision is performed on young, helpless girls who have no say in whether they want the procedure performed or not—their parents and community decide for them. In addition, the procedure is performed by a non-certified practitioner who “uses a small knife or razor blade but no anesthesia” (Ashford). Female mutilation is morally wrong and unethical due to the fact that it is an unnecessary procedure that carries many medical risks and serious infections without any medical benefits, and because the girls who are circumcised are not given a choice whether they want to be circumcised or not.
There are many stakeholders involved in the practice of female circumcision—not just the girl. In addition to the girl who is being mutilated, other individuals include her family and the “practitioner” who performs the circumcision on her. The Somalian government is also a stakeholder because they choose to condone the practice. Systemic stakeholders include the Westerners (Americans and Europeans), activist groups, other Somalians, and lenders. Lenders also in the wrong, if they choose to help fund and contribute to the practice of female circumcision. Even though they are indirectly connected to the practice, deciding to be a part of torture and mutilation links them immorally. It would be morally just if lenders chose to refuse to contribute, because it would show that they took a stance against female mutilation by deciding not to aid in the practice. In addition, if