The people carrying out cliterodectomies bear the burden of proof ultimately to the children, one they cannot satisfy.
And then what?
If the children feel violated enough, they can get involved politically and change the laws or social mores. This doesn't guarantee success, though.
My point was that just cause something's been around doesn't make it lose it's onus.
If it has been around for a while, the onus issue gets moot.
Take for example the child who was abused by family and others "in the name of God."
What should he do when he grows up? Sue his family? For what exactly - what exactly would the legal charges be?
This seems to be the foundation of your position. Once something has been around, it loses its onus
No, this is not the foundation of my position.
and anything that goes against it has an onus.
Yes.
Anyone who has ever gone against anyone or anything has carried the onus.
This is how it works out in practice.
In an ideal world, the perpetrator would, on their own accord, admit their wrongdoing and beg forgiveness. But this is not an ideal world, and perpetrators admit their wrongdoing and beg forgiveness only sometimes.
The family of the person in the above example can just laugh him off, claim that he is exaggerating, or that he should legally prove that they indeed were in the wrong.
At least internally, this person will have to come to terms with the fact that the family might never come to see the error of their ways.
More importantly, this person has the onus of moving on even without other people's admission of guilt.
Relying on the wrongdoer to admit the wrongdoing is not conducive to moving on.
This is how the onus is on the one who wants to move on, who breaks with the tradition.
I don't think that is the case. Some traditions are good, some are bad - at least for some people - most are probably mixed. They are all actively, ongoing creating, spreading, enforcing themselves. They are changing people to fit them. They have as much onus as anything else that says 'this is good, that is not.'
You think it is meaningul to sue the RCC because you were abused by a priest?
The legal option available is to sue the specific priest. Who may or may not plead guilty. The RCC may excommunicate him.
As far as 'maybe not all these women who've had cliterodectimies suffer....'
Who performs the majority of the cliterodectomies? Who supports this practice?
I imagine it is women.
Maybe not, but then if we are going out on this fantastic criterion - since the girls they were suffered incredibly - maybe not all victims of rape, ultimately suffer - they go on to have lives that are no longer affected by the trauma.
Nevertheless I think rape is wrong.
Nobody said it wasn't.
But some people do seem to have the conviction that if the victim has moved on with their life, this means that there wasn't really any crime perpetrated against them.
And a cliterodectomy is a rape where the clitoris is removed and the genitals are sewn up AND then the husband rips open the sewn up vagina with his penis.
And casually risking the woman's health and life and calling it "love" and "intimacy" is allright?