Sanctioning Barbarity: American Academy of Pediatrics and the New York Times
by Pamela GellerIn what can only be construed as a complete loss of any semblance of goodness and morality in the name of multicultural poison, the most advanced civilization on the world is sanctioning…clitorectomies. They have issued a policy statement suggesting that doctors in the US perform a mild form of this sick barbarity on girls to keep their families from sending them overseas for it.

According to the New York Times, the American Academy of Pediatrics last week advocated that American doctors be allowed to stick girls’ clitorises with a needle so as to satisfy Muslim and African families’ demand for female genital mutilation: “It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm.”
Congressman Joseph Crowley (D-NY) commented on the danger of this: “I am sure the academy had only good intentions, but what their recommendation has done is only create confusion about whether F.G.M. is acceptable in any form, and it is the wrong step forward on how best to protect young women and girls. F.G.M. serves no medical purpose, and it is rightfully banned in the U.S.”
Georganne Chapin, executive director of Intact America, a group defending women from this practice, was “astonished that a group of intelligent people did not see the utter slippery slope” that the AAP had started on by allowing for the “ritual nick.” Chapin asked: “How much blood will parents be satisfied with? There are countries in the world that allow wife beating, slavery and child abuse, but we don’t allow people to practice those customs in this country. We don’t let people have slavery a little bit because they’re going to do it anyway, or beat their wives a little bit because they’re going to do it anyway.”
Chapin is right. What next? Wife-beating seminars and its unintended benefits? Or a strip in Vegas for child marriages, so they won’t go overseas for the nuptials? Allowing for this “ritual nick” will not have the effect these nudnik do-gooders imagine. It will have just the opposite effect. Islamic misogyny will be given the seal of approval by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Also, this is not the first time that the New York Times has given clitorectomies its tacit approval: in January 2008 it painted a rosy picture of the ritual in a piece that never mentioned the pain, bleeding, and infections that often result from it.
Female genital mutilation is not the only horrific Islamic custom that is coming West. The number of honor killings is skyrocketing in Europe and America. It has been reported that thousands of girls in the United Kingdom have been mutilated and the authorities can’t (or won’t) stop it. To the credit of the U.K. media, at least they have been having a public discussion about it. It’s happening here, but to speak of it publicly would insult CAIR.
The AAP recommendation is another example of raging Sharia in the U.S. Despite the taqiya, Islam sanctions female genital mutilation, and sometimes even encourages it. Muhammad Al-Mussayar, an Islamic scholar at Al-Azhar University, the most prestigious and influential institution in the Islamic world, said that Islam doesn’t forbid female genital mutlation: “All the jurisprudents, since the advent of Islam and for 14 centuries or more, are in consensus that female circumcision is permitted by Islam. But they were divided with regard to its status in shari’a. Some said that female circumcision is required by shari’a, just like male circumcision. Some said this is the mainstream practice, while others said it is a noble act. But throughout the history of Islam, nobody has ever said that performing female circumcision is a crime. There has been a religious ruling on this for 14 centuries.”
And now it effectively has the approval of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
By G-d, these are our daughters. This is our culture that these clueless dhimmi buffoons are throwing away with both hands. No matter how you couch this argument, and the New York Times is the master of velvet-tongued barbarity, what the American Academy of Pediatrics has done is grotesque – and it will lead to more approval for Sharia teachings on women.
Our daughters and granddaughters will be the ones who will suffer for it.






Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
653 Comments
F-ing vile to do that and other things to innocent children.
What a disgusting tradition!
It's misogynistic on so many levels.
FGM is a crime. It makes no difference where it is performed. The parents / practitioners should be prosecuted as pedophile torturers – no matter where this crime occurs.
Ahhh…the religion of peace! What a despicable practice by the Islamo-Goons…wow!
Currently it is a five year prison term to perform the heinous act of female genital mutilation. Only in an ObamaNation would this even be considered. Judith Palfrey has been working with our First Lady on Children's heath issues, this should come as no surprise. Call your Congressional and Senate leaders now. It could become part of the monster Obamacare program, now that the American Academy of Pediatrics has endorsed this banned and illegal procedure. This is so outrageous, so violent to young girls with life long lasting ramifications. It is remarkable it is even being discussed as viable.
The Islamofication of America continues by the man from Mombassa…
OK O'Bobo and wife Wharrf – let's start with your two daughters as examples – this makes me want to vomit you puking muzzie lover!!!
The National Organization of Women condemns this in 3…..2……1…….. *SNORT* Just kidding, we all know we must respect other cultural traditions, in the name of diversity, as they are just as valid as ours….
I don't have the words to express my disgust. This is no longer the America of my birth. Every time I turn around I see Liberty, Freedom, and Justice being sacrificed to an imported bloody and barbaric idol. What's next…doctor assisted honor killings and child rape?
This is The United States of America!!!! We DO NOT mutilate ANYONE for diverse cultural reasons!! IF these sick parents want this done to their children give them a one way ticket BACK to the country of their choice!!! NOW!!!
Well, partial birth abortion is a constitutional right, how much further will we sink into barbarianism?
Someone please explain to me why a parent would do this or have this done to thier own daughter??
Pam, I like your work, but I read the most recent post I could find by the American Academy of Pediatrics (dated May 1, 2010), and it does not condone this hideous practice. Then I checked the NYT, and could not get anything this recent (though I'm not a 'member' of the Times). A link to the reference would be helpful here.
But, of course, thank you for raising awareness of a disgusting, violent, inexcusable offense practiced on human beings.
Why aren't the feminists outraged in the torture of little girls?
If Michelle Obama was normal, she would speak against it.
I noticed more Muslims on the UN human rights commission.
They've been mutilating penises for at least a generation.
Let's hope Pam's ludicrous claim brings a little attention to that barbaric ritual.
Barbarians!
Totally disgusting! And I would expect nothing less of this brand of Islam. The denial of rights to females is a middle age practice. Masked women smacks of an anarchist rally. Denying women the right to drive and vote is remeniscent of the 19th century. And F.G.M. is akin to 15th century torture chambers. And waterboarding is torture? Right!! If these people wish to live in the stone age, let them. In their own country.
Multiculturalism has NO place in this country. Unity is what has made America strong. If a person is unwilling to live by American laws and values and embrace our culture, get the Hell out.
This is the same exact argument they used to legalize abortion.
Just another example of religious crackpots trying to keep people from having sex.
And would someone please explain to me why anyone would have their son's penis mutilated? Please, one of you Christian's step up to the plate here and explain why God gave us that protective piece of skin only so a doctor would have to chop it off.
NOW is too busy spreading Marxism to stand up for women's rights.
At first I was horrified that The American Academy of Pediatrics would endorse such a heinous procedure. After spending a little time it may be that The New York Times has run yet another story not entrenched in any truth. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/health/policy/07cuts.h... The NYT article states that the AAP has been contacted by pediatricians to legalize the( brutal) procedure, the website for AAP does not actually endorse female genital mutilation. This could be just more NYT hype or it could be a story generated by our Administration for what's to come ahead in legislation and the reversal of federal prosecution. Hard to say.
I guess the doctor's oath to "…do no harm" is taken lightly. Protect the children…even the Muslim children. Come on guys. But then I am opposed to piercing ears of children too. Why not wait until they are old enough to make decisions like this on their own?
This creeping insanity needs to be stopped..I have no idea who sits around dreaming this cr*p up, but it is neverending..Female genital mutilation..let's do this to make Muslims happy, elderly can't pray at lunch because the federal gov. pays for a portion of lunch and we need to keep separation of church and state, the American flag is offensive in public schools..and on it goes. When is enough, enough?? When do we rise up and take back our rights, our nation. 1.8 Million Muslims..are changing this?? and our textbooks..Americans..on your feet..enough is enough..
This creeping insanity needs to be stopped..I have no idea who sits around dreaming this cr*p up, but it is neverending..Female genital mutilation..let's do this to make Muslims happy, elderly can't pray at lunch because the federal gov. pays for a portion of lunch and we need to keep separation of church and state, the American flag is offensive in public schools..and on it goes. When is enough, enough?? When do we rise up and take back our rights, our nation. 1.8 Million Muslims..are changing this?? and our textbooks..Americans..on your feet..enough is enough..
We went from burning bras and the equal rights amendment to clitoral mutilation?
Does anybody see the irony here? Where's Gloria Steinem on this?
Our Muslim-in-Chief will be so outraged By this I'm Sure!
do a little medical research and you will discover that un-circumcised men have a far greater risk of S.T.D.'s and other problems. whatever the original reasons, it does have medical benefits
You mean the one that has major health benefits? Pretty sure FGM has zero.
The Barbarians are no longer at the gate! They are running our country. How's that "Hope & Change" working out for YA!!
Where do you have to go to find people who can rationalize these perversions? Any Progressive think tank.
At the rate we're headed in the West, in 20 years, Planned Parenthood will be championing the newest Clitorectomy Clinic in Peoria.
Gee, I don't hear any squaking from the NOW gang, how come?
Major health benefits with circumcision? WTF? They f**king cut me up without my permission because someone sold this crap idea to the medical community. Now they want to sell the same idea of the so-called "major benefits" of female genital mutilation to the same community. It's crap. There are major benefits to washing up; you don't just start cutting off parts because it's inconvenient to wash them. If it's illegal to cut up girls it should be illegal to cut up boys. Effing barbarians, anyone who would cut up kids sex organs. BTW, is this story really true or just cooked up hysteria?
Anan..STFU!!
No. Circumcision has no medical benefits. It is completely unnecessary.
Well, they certainly have no problem slashing up boys all day long.
That oath is probably taken as seriously as the President's oath "to preserve and defend our Constitution!'
"This is The United States of America!!!! We DO NOT mutilate ANYONE for diverse cultural reasons!!"
Wrong. We do. Male infants are being mutilated by the millions.
Been a lot longer than a generation and that ought to be put to a stop as well.
Geller you are in error to put it mildly. Here is the actual policy statement. If it changed as a result of your efforts and the efforts of others, great, but at any rate your story is incorrect as of this posting. The AAP website states: "The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes all types of female genital cutting that pose risks of physical or psychological harm, counsels its members not to perform such procedures, recommends that its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out harmful forms of FGC, and urges its members to provide patients and their parents with compassionate education about the harms of FGC while remaining sensitive to the cultural and religious reasons that motivate parents to seek this procedure for their daughters."
There are medical reasons for that though. Decreased risk of UTI and STDs, for example. There are reasons not to do it as well, but it's up to the parent to weigh the benefits and risks of it. There is NO medical reason for FGM. That's the difference.
care to offer evidence of that which you speak? Either have something useful to say, or keep it to yourself.
To continue, maybe it is not a good idea to rely on the NYT for information when writing your own article. As a liner for one's birdcage it is said to be superior, though. The NYT is in error and the Academy issue no such statement according to it's own website policy page.
Because Christians are the only ones who circumcize? Whatever. Maybe you should ask your Jewish friends why they insist on circumcision. Shouldn't you demand that they explain it too? No, of course, not, you only care about trolling those right wing Christian nut jobs.
Stuff a sock in it … or stuff it in a sock.
"There are medical reasons for that though."
No. There are not.
And it should be left up to the owner of the penis.
False. Decreased risk of UTIs and STDs. Not necessary, either. It's completely optional, and IMO worth the risks associated with surgery and general anesthesia.
John- The New York Times article misrepresents the AAP position, I would speculate deliberately. In a previous post I have a link to the article. Everything I found from AAP states opposition to female genital mutilation as you stated. We should have been skeptical right off the bat given the original story came out of The New York Times.
I know it's counter-productive to try to explain anything to you, but …
In terms of the damage done, male circumcision removes a flap of skin. Female "circumsition" removes a major nerve.
Easier solution: deport the savages back to whatever fleabitten Shariah shithole they came from.
Proof of your statement?
Here's mine:
Regarding newborn circumcision, most physicians today agree with the practice of informing parents of the risks and benefits of the procedure in an unbiased manner. Recently, however, several large studies revealed a 60% decrease in HIV transmission in circumcised males compared to uncircumcised males. This may ultimately influence some changes in recommendations in the near future.
don't confuse 'anon-sequitur' with the facts. in fact, don't confuse him with anyone who might be remotely familiar with anything remotely resembling a fact.
and yeah, yeah, yeah, anon- 'God we're stupid.' -thought id save you the trouble of posting that stinging rejoinder of yours…
Verrrrrrrrry valid point…….
If a parent wishes to do this to a little girl Child Services should step in and remove the child from the home. Then take it to the courts. What beasts!
The Liberals/Progressives/Democrats just love all the entitlements don't they?
"The problem with Socialism is that sooner or later you
will run out of other peoples money." Margret Thatcher, former PM United Kingdom.
http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=26803
Here again your twisted logic is not comparing apples to apples. To say that FGM is the same as male circumcision is idiotic. The closest thing I would compare it to is castration. Let's see how many Muslim men will line up for that procedure, and then you can maybe start comparing the two.
Not the same thing. The closest thing would be male castration, and I don't see men of any religion lining up for that procedure.
No he won't be. We're forced to accept any and all practices in the name of diversity.
We must be tolerent — even of abhorent, dangerous limits placed on women —
I'm sure in time laws will be on the books allowing men to marry child brides
and stone unfaithful wives.
THAT'S where we're headed with the PC crap today.
It is so unreal I can't even believe it's being considered.
Where did our Country go ?
Is this the USA our brave troops fight and die for ?
Shame on us, for allowing the insanity to expand this way !
That was my point exactly. You can't compare FGM to male circumcision. The closest thing would be male castration.
Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is the partial or total removal of the female external genitalia. External genitals include the clitoris, labia, mons pubis (the fatty tissue over the pubic bone), and the urethral and vaginal openings.
The practice of FGM is often called "female circumcision" (FC), implying that it is similar to male circumcision. However, the degree of cutting is much more extensive, often impairing a woman's sexual and reproductive functions.
Sources:
World Health Organization. (1995). "Female Genital Mutilation: Report of a WHO Technical Working Group". Geneva: World Health Organization; pp. 9.
Toubia, N. (1993). Female Genital Mutilation: A Call for Global Action. New York: Women, Ink; pp. 9.
Your research seems a little limited in scope.
@mg24 you are correct. The closest thing to FGM is male castration. I can't believe that someone would bring up the argument about male circumcision in relation to FGM. The Muslims perform this horrible procedure on little girls for that very reason of female castration.
Ever seen a video of an abortion? We past the point into barbarism many moons ago.
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;125/5/1088
Read it – it says exactly what is stated in the post. And here is The NYT article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/health/policy/0...
Big Gevernment = Less Freedom
Left = Barbarism
And people are starting to take notice, come on November!
Finding myself in agreement with anon makes me question my own sanity. But here goes:
Proof that your proof is suspect: Circumcision started as a practice in the 1920's, long before HIV was ever known. So, what's your explanation for why it started back then? I have one and I'd like to hear yours. Also, if the medical case is so compelling, maybe you can explain why it's not done in Europe?
It seems that whenever medical orthodoxy is challenged, the first impulse of the medical establishment is to circle the wagons. So, it's no surprise that "research" gets cooked up to justify a practice that came about because of 1920's era quackery. Go look it up.
As as for the benefits of not being circumcised, well, you literally don't know what you're missing.
Here is the reference to where the AAP specifically recommends "nicks":http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content...
Look in the section labelsed "EDUCATION OF PATIENTS AND PARENTS" about half way down the page.
Here is the direct quote from the second half of paragraph 3 in that section:
"Most forms of FGC are decidedly harmful, and pediatricians should decline to perform them, even in the absence of any legal constraints. However, the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and life-threatening procedures in their native countries, and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC. It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm."
Unbeleivable, but they really said it.
[...] » Sanctioning Barbarity: American Academy of Pediatrics and the … By admin | category: AMERICAN | tags: academy, cruise-spotted, female-genital, [...]
Likewise, the completely unnecessary need to perform male circumcisions. What were my parents thinking?
I typed up something completely inappropriate and then deleted it. I suspect MO doesn't care if they are not overweight.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/health/policy/07cuts.html
I have no idea why it started back then. It's not relevant to my medical decisions now, in 2010. In 2010, there are relationships between circumcized men and decreased rates of UTI, STDs, penis cancer, and cervical cancer in their female partners.That's worth it to me.
As for challenging the current medical orthodoxy, physicians (as a broad generalization) hate being wrong. They take it personally. When the policymaking organizations are wrong, it makes all physicans look bad, in their own eyes, hence the circling of the wagons.
All that being said, as I understand it, fewer people are opting for circumcision. At the birth of my two sons, the physician asked us if we wanted them circumcized. He gave us a pamphlet with the pros and cons, then came back in a few days for our decision. No pushiness, no opinions on the matter.
A 5/10/2010 article in the AAP journal, "Pediatrics", explicitly calls for doctors NOT to assist in these mutilations: "The AAP opposes all forms of FGM, counsels its members not to perform such ritual procedures, and encourages the development of community educational programs for immigrant populations."
So I'm not sure what the NYT is talking about.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content...
Nathan, if you weren't so blind, you would see through the bullshit excuses that doctors pose as "benefits" to male circumcision. Both male and female circumcisions are a crime against humanity. Read the way the studies were performed and you will see that circumcision as a "solution" is completely retarded. The studies basically showed that less skin equals less infections. While that may be true, the problem lies in the solution itself. By that "solution", the removal of the entire penis would offer the most benefit. That is absurd. Also what they don't tell you is that the tissue removed is highly sensitive and designed to protect the glans of the penis. Circumcision turns the glans from an "internal" organ to a permanent external organ. I myself am circumcised, at birth, and now that I am educated, I am completely against it. And because of my resenting of this unnecessary yet legal form of infant genital cutting, By definition, i have been mutilated. Go ahead tell me and tell me I am wrong, i dare you. I am not a sexist, i oppose all forms of mutilation, and fully back the fundamental human right for an intact genitalia until the age of consent, at which point you can do whatever you want.
Maybe if we told the MSM and NOW that it was a Christian practice?
Would that get them off their butts?
It is not a " flap" of skin, you are severely ill-informed.
Why don't you ask them?
More extensive in some cases absolutely, however, that is no reason to justify one against the other. Both are terribly wrong. Neither offer real benefits, and they are only employed to satisfy social customs. By the way Most people don’t know this mg24 but studies show that the most sensitive parts of the penis are in the foreskin. Let me explain, the foreskin is partly made up of specialized mucous membrane skin which are packed full of nerves. Also included in the foreskin is a “rigid band”, this part of the foreskin connects directly to the frenulum to allow stimulation of the frenulum during penetration. The frenulum is a more rigid type of skin closely related to the clitoris in females and studies show they give a very similar sensation. Now during circumcision the foreskin is removed, taking with it the smooth muscle fibers of the skin that house and protect the glans of the penis. The frenulum and rigid band are also amputated. Now thats over four different types of specialized tissue that are removed, those tissues combined have close to double the nerves than the glans of the penis. Not to mention that once circumcised the glans of the penis keratinizes, which severely decreases the sensitivity of the glans. By the way FYI keratin is a very tough material generally produced by animals in their hoofs and claws and it is closely related to chitin which is used in the protective scales of alligator skin.
So in conclusion, circumcision of males especially before they even know they have a penis is just as bad and possibly even more debilitating than female circumcision. This is especially true in my opinion if you take into consideration the number of male victims and the number of female victims, if you do the math it will definitely tip your scale, close to 15 males mutilated to every 1 female. Now please, I am well researched. I understand they use crude tools and believe me my sympathy goes out to those women who are victims. But realistically speaking there is twice the amount of material and twice the amount of skin types removed from males than there is from females. I am not trying to make a war saying one is worse, though it may appear so given the information presented. For the sake of humanity I say they are both a crime of equal stature. A crime that when practiced on children should be punishable by death. Now unfortunately these mutilations are still practiced on both sexes and for that I am deeply disgusted.
More extensive in some cases absolutely, however, that is no reason to justify one against the other. Both are terribly wrong. Neither offer real benefits, and they are only employed to satisfy social customs. By the way Most people don’t know this mg24 but studies show that the most sensitive parts of the penis are in the foreskin. Let me explain, the foreskin is partly made up of specialized mucous membrane skin which are packed full of nerves. Also included in the foreskin is a “rigid band”, this part of the foreskin connects directly to the frenulum to allow stimulation of the frenulum during penetration. The frenulum is a more rigid type of skin closely related to the clitoris in females and studies show they give a very similar sensation. Now during circumcision the foreskin is removed, taking with it the smooth muscle fibers of the skin that house and protect the glans of the penis. The frenulum and rigid band are also amputated. Now thats over four different types of specialized tissue that are removed, those tissues combined have close to double the nerves than the glans of the penis. Not to mention that once circumcised the glans of the penis keratinizes, which severely decreases the sensitivity of the glans. By the way FYI keratin is a very tough material generally produced by animals in their hoofs and claws and it is closely related to chitin which is used in the protective scales of alligator skin.
So in conclusion, circumcision of males especially before they even know they have a penis is just as bad and possibly even more debilitating than female circumcision. This is especially true in my opinion if you take into consideration the number of male victims and the number of female victims, if you do the math it will definitely tip your scale, close to 15 males mutilated to every 1 female. Now please, I am well researched. I understand they use crude tools and believe me my sympathy goes out to those women who are victims. But realistically speaking there is twice the amount of material and twice the amount of skin types removed from males than there is from females. I am not trying to make a war saying one is worse, though it may appear so given the information presented. For the sake of humanity I say they are both a crime of equal stature. A crime that when practiced on children should be punishable by death. Now unfortunately these mutilations are still practiced on both sexes and for that I am deeply disgusted.
"Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; But he is a Jew who is one inwardly and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God."
Romans 2:26-29
Sounds like you both deserve to be circumcised against you will, like i was. Maybe then you will oppose all forms of genital mutilation, regardless of gender. You both disgust me.
are you circumcised? a little nick? goose, meet gander.
Freud was right.
I blame my parents, the doctors, and all the pedophiles in this country/world who blindly support infant genital mutilation. It is not up to anyone to cut MY genitals. That holds true for all non consenting humans, male or female.
Go here.
http://tinyurl.com/2b5m62w
The fact that anyone would ever sanction the mutilation of children is horrendous.
The attitude of male appeasement by doctors in our country for women to still be seen as property is unbelievable. Let's start jacking with their penises and testes to make them bigger because we women prefer it that way. Their size would be equal to their egos when maturity arrives. The longer the better.
More extensive in some cases absolutely, however, that is no reason to justify one against the other. Both are terribly wrong. Neither offer real benefits, and they are only employed to satisfy social customs. By the way Most people dont know this mg24 but studies show that the most sensitive parts of the penis are in the foreskin. Let me explain, the foreskin is partly made up of specialized mucous membrane skin which are packed full of nerves. Also included in the foreskin is a rigid band, this part of the foreskin connects directly to the frenulum to allow stimulation of the frenulum during penetration. The frenulum is a more rigid type of skin closely related to the clitoris in females and studies show they give a very similar sensation. Now during circumcision the foreskin is removed, taking with it the smooth muscle fibers of the skin that house and protect the glans of the penis. The frenulum and rigid band are also amputated. Now thats over four different types of specialized tissue that are removed, those tissues combined have close to double the nerves than the glans of the penis. Not to mention that once circumcised the glans of the penis keratinizes, which severely decreases the sensitivity of the glans. By the way FYI keratin is a very tough material generally produced by animals in their hoofs and claws and it is closely related to chitin which is used in the protective scales of alligator skin.
But you got better!
We must get along with our child mutilating,wife-beating,wife-beheading,slave owning, religious friends.
Have we become so politically correct that now we are adopting barbaric medical porceedures to simply avoid religious practices what mutilate women and condone the demeaning of the place of a woman in society and the world.
Thank you photon…you nailed it!
Ask any man in his 60s who HAS NOT been circumcised and is having problems with the foreskin how he feels about it. Circumcision in adulthood is very, very painful.
It's structurally skin and mucous membrane with that degree of sensitivity.
The clitoris is the major nerve.
If male circumcision performed the same way female circumsicion did, then the entire penis would be cut off to excise that same nerve that forms the clitoris in women.
This is so disgusting. What is happening to our nation? I can't believe that this is even an issue. Common sense would or should clearly prevail… right? I'm wondering where is N.O.W. at? Or P.E.T.A. hell they protest when people wear fur or eat meat. Why can't they protest this barbaric practice of mutilating little girls? Where is this great nation headed? I'm throughly disgusted & deeply saddened.
Allow me to illuminate you. It was indisputable belief by the medical profession that all manner of ailments, particularly mental illness was caused by masturbation. And circumcision was prescribed as a "cure". And we all know how well that worked. Ever hear the phrase "Stop that or you'll go blind"? (Punchline: "Can I stop when I need glasses?").
Can you imagine the medical establishment come out and say that they were doing this in the US for almost a century for no legitimate reason? Doctors are trained to be the voice of authority and don't like saying "I don't know". They think that if they admit any mistakes it casts doubt on the entire profession. But that cuts both ways. Insisting that you were right all along, even when the original reason was wrong, casts doubts too.
I can understand your anger, but equating people who believe in circumcision to pedophiles essentially lost me.
Silent as usual when it's true abuse of females and not just an excuse to attack and malign conservative, straight, white males.
i first learned about this horrendous practice in 1982/1983 from a copy of Ms. magazine, yes I believe Gloria Steinem was editor in cheif back then too.
No they were not for this procedure at all.
One thing I found interesting was that all the African countries mention in the NYT article, the 1 glaring ommissiom was the country of KENYA!
Who do we know comes from KENYA?
The Masai Tribe of people in KENYA are big practioners of this horror.
Read "Possessing the Secret of Joy" by Alice Walker if you're more interested
Yes we do, and shouldn't. Every mail child circumcised is mutilated and this also needs to be stopped. Perhaps that issue with FGM should raise awareness of the abuse of male babies via circumcision, which should called MGM.
It doesn't matter to me if you view things from a Spiritual or a Cosmic perspective, Islam and Christianity/Judaism ultimately cannot/will not exist together. It does matter which side you are on.
If this is such a good Idea,then Obama can be the first to get his Female Genitalia Circumcised!
Years ago, I worked with a woman from an African Country and we were friendly enough that I asked her about it. She said yes it goes on and what stopped it from happeneing to her was her FATHER! Her mother wanted to have it done to her, she had a little baby girl who was about 3 years old at the time and Grandma was pushing to take the baby back to Ghana. My friend did want to send her baby girl because she was afraid Grandma was going to do this to the child. I left the job before I was able to find out what happened.
I had another friend from KENYA! I asked her also about it and she said yes it went on, and it was also her FATHER who refused to have it done to her too.
You must be logged in to post a comment.