For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
American Medical Group Facilitates Barbaric Practice of ‘Female Circumcision’
Written By : Warner Todd Huston

The barbaric Muslim practice of mutilating the genitals of little girls apparently is A’OK with the American Academy of Pediatrics, at least just a little bit, anyway. In an act of political correctness gone mad the AAP has announced that it thinks it’s a good idea to mollify Muslims and gloss over their barbaric practice by instituting what they are calling a “ritual nick” on little girl’s genitals.

It’s the veritable camel’s nose under the tent flaps. After all, by what logic does one refuse to accept this disgusting attack on womanhood when you agree that any part of the practice is justifiable? Today it will be a “ritual nick,” then it becomes a “ceremonial slash,” graduating to excuse the removal of some ever growing amount of flesh, and before you know it we have full-blown mutilation of little girls just like many Muslims want.

In the AAP’s statement on such mutilation a “concern” over the supposed harm to the culture of these immigrant Muslims is treated as a legitimate worry.

Some physicians, including pediatricians who work closely with immigrant populations in which FGC is the norm, have voiced concern about the adverse effects of criminalization of the practice on educational efforts. These physicians emphasize the significance of a ceremonial ritual in the initiation of the girl or adolescent as a community member and advocate only pricking or incising the clitoral skin as sufficient to satisfy cultural requirements. This is no more of an alteration than ear piercing.

Ask a woman whose sexual organs have been laid waste if she thinks it is no different than an ear piercing.

The AAP then goes on to approve of the “ritual nicking” in order to mollify the Muslim immigrant’s putrid practices.

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.

First of all, whether you agree with male circumcision or not — and there is great passion about the practice — it cannot be said that men have their sexual gratification utterly eliminated by the procedure as women do when Muslims heartlessly cut them to pieces in the most extreme examples of the practice of female circumcision. And if American doctors begin to approve of this barbarism at any level they will, indeed, “play a role” in “FGC.” They will be playing a role in the eventual full acceptance of female genital mutilation in this country as Muslims continue to push for its acceptance and concessions continue to be made to mollify them.

In America we do not take knives to tear apart the sexual organs of little girls, AAP. There is no more excuse for a “ritual nick” as there is for the full monstrous Muslim practice of slicing little girls to pieces. This disgusting practice should be outlawed in all its forms from the tiniest cut to the worst a Muslim can do to their defenseless children.

Euphemistically called a “female circumcision,” the procedure is nothing less than just another way to enslave women to Muslim men. When a woman’s pleasure centers are summarily mutilated many things result. When women do not get any pleasure from sex and this fact, goes the backwards Muslim thinking, will prevent them from being interested in men other than their husbands. This hatred for women is a piece with veils, Burqas and other coverings and complies with the Muslim practice of keeping their women suppressed.

It is emblematic of the fact that Muslim beliefs are a man’s beliefs. Sex is only pleasurable for men, women are faceless non-entities that deserve no pleasure, they are allowed no lives other than raising children, allowed no self-expression, and if they don’t like it they get beaten into submission by their “loving” husbands. This barbarism is precisely what the AAP would open the door to spreading in the United States by allowing even a little recognition of their horrid practice of female mutilation.

Lastly, the AAP’s appeasement policies are Chamberlain-like in that they show why the west could possibly lose this fight of a cultural onslaught forced upon us by invading Muslim radicals. As we bend over backwards to be “reasonable” with the unreasonable, they push, prod, and use our own system against us to get eventual complete acceptance of any old barbarism they want to push upon the world.

Sure the AAP made all sorts of noises about how it stands against female mutilation, but that it backed off a total ban on this hatred toward women by allowing the nose-under-the-tent “ritual nick” shows that it really doesn’t have the courage of its convictions nor does it have thhe welfare of women at heart.

So, a tiny bit of mutilation of innocent, helpless little girls is OK with the AAP today. But how long will it be before it is allowing greater and greater amounts of mutilation in order to appease Islamic sensibilities? Likely not long.

0
  • CoolCzech

    “Ritual nick”?

    GOOD LORD!

    To be clear: the practice involves slicing off a girl's clitoral hood or – often – her entire clitoris. It can also include slicing off her labia minora, and partially sewing shut her vaginal entrance (so her hubby can cut it open on the “Wedding” night, if these animals can be considered capable of “wedding” in anything other than the most sarcastic sense).

    The National Organization of Women of course has no problem with this, provided it's the “culture” of her parents… the girl's wishes are, just like in the Middle East, besides the point apparently.

    I don't know WHAT the hell is wrong with the Left. Maybe someone performed a cerebral cortex circumcision on them at birth?

    • http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

      They've all had frontal lobotomies, it was done when the umbilical cord was cut.

  • Trench_Raider

    And yet those on the left would us believe that all cultures are of equal worth…

    TR

  • http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

    How about we end all ritual genital scarification/mutilation? For both boys and girls. It's an ancient and barbaric practice left over from less civilised times and serves no meaningful health, hygienic or medical purpose whatsoever.

    So let's just do the sensible thing and put an end to it all.

    I'll pre-emptively say 'I'm sorry' to my Jewish peers who think that paying a mohel to snip the foreskin of their male babies on their eighth day of life is some form of tribute to Yhwh. I respect the act of tribute and the significance of the mind/body connection to the creator. I don't respect the need to inflict physical harm to an infant any more than I respect a Muslim mother holding her six year-old daughter down forcefully while a street vendor with what amounts to gardening shears clips off her clitoris.

    • Mr. EMT

      Men who have been circumcised are less prone to infection and disease.
      Do not compare male circumcision to genital mutilation, there is no comparison.
      The act performed on women has the same purpose as rape. Its a power exchange, and removal of rights and forced victimization on the child.
      the act performed on male's is due to the belief in health risks. Not to force control on them.

      • http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

        Sorry, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on that. Circumcision nets obstetricians an extra $50 or $80 on their charges and that's about it. The health benefit you speak of can be achieved simply by pulling back the foreskin and washing – an act which takes mum or dad all of 2 seconds while bathing sonny or changing his diapers. Once the lad is old enough, he can easily be taught to take the brief second it takes to clean himself when he bathes/showers. Sadly, the price men all too often pay for that “convenient” circumcision is likely to be a lifetime of dulled sexual response/pleasure and possibly premature ejaculation. Not a good tradeoff to my way of thinking.

        The whole mythos that circumcised men are “cleaner” has been put to rest by many physicians groups around the world. I think the most recent is the Royal Australasian College of Physicians in Australia, which in 2009 changed their formal policy to not recommend male circumcision as a rule. Most European men are not circumcised (in fact most men around the world aren't circumcised) and there is negligible difference in the rates of UTIs or STD infections between them and circumcised men. Infections in men are solely related to hygiene, and one has to wonder about the personal or societal worth of a man who can't manage to spend the short moments per day it takes to keep his johnson clean.

        What else is he neglecting, one has to wonder?

        In short, whacking skin off the penis is convenient for mums and dads, it makes doctors a little extra money, and, well…that's about it. The effort required to keep the affected area clean is so trivial as to make the procedure superfluous.

        • baoxian

          It made hygenic sense 2000 years ago in the Middle East. Today we have indoor plumbing and sewage systems.

          Kind of like poorly prepared pork had a good chance of killing you in the Middle East 2000 years ago. Today we have ovens and hospitals.

          Much of what we consider Old Testament religious law was simply instructions on how to get through your day without getting sick or killed. If I eat a pork-chop, bacon, and chipped ham sandwich, I'm not dishonoring God…I just know more about food preparation and safety than the Pharisees.

        • Mr. EMT

          Big word, “superfluous,”
          Kinda describes the margin of comparison made between mutilating a female's sexual organ to force control over them the rest of their life, Vs male circumcision.

          • http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

            Which is a comparison I never made. My exact words were:

            “How about we end all ritual genital scarification/mutilation? For both boys and girls.”

            No comparison. No equivalency put forth. Just a call to stop all procedures involving scarification/mutilation of children's genitals.

        • mightysamurai

          Sadly, the price men all too often pay for that “convenient” circumcision is likely to be a lifetime of dulled sexual response/pleasure and possibly premature ejaculation.

          An unproven assumption that is not backed up by all the relevant evidence.

          • http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

            Which might be relevant had I claimed that it was a common or even frequent consequence of male circumcision. Which I didn't.

          • Mr. EMT

            No comparison. No equivalency put forth. Just a call to stop all procedures involving scarification/mutilation of children's genitals

            Regardless of what you intended, that is how your post comes off, comparing circumcision with mutilation.

            Sadly, the price men all too often pay for that “convenient” circumcision is likely to be a lifetime of dulled sexual response/pleasure and possibly premature ejaculation.

            And yeah you make it sound like that is a common problem with your statement.

            I refrained comment because I had never heard of any complications like that attributed to circumcision. It sounded like BS, but i generally don't call someone out on BS comments unless I know it is BS.

            What I do know from personal experience in the medical field is I have encountered more complications from males with foreskins than circumsisions.
            I.e., strangulation, infection, UTI's etc.

            You say just wash it?
            I have seen bed bound patients where that was not an option for them to perform their selves and they were at the mercy of the health care providers in understaffed nursing homes to do.

            In either event, circumcision is not any form of mutilation, nor is it a sign of being irresponsible to not circumcise.

            My original point stands, you can not make a comparison between the two.

          • http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

            As I said a post or two back, EMT, I suspect that you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this issue. As I just stated to sam, rather than to see circumcision as being somehow equivalent to clitordectomy, I see them as two points on a continuum, and I see no value in the whole continuum.

            As I stated earlier, the practice of circumcision is largely an American one, and there are loads of medical practitioners and medical societies outside of the US who find the practice of 'circumcision as the rule' to be of questionable medical value. While I agree that our medical system is superior to those in the rest of the world in general, there are specific weaknesses and blind spots in our system, and I think this is one those. In other words, we lead the world in a lot of health statistics and practices, but not in all of them, and I think this is one of them in which we don't lead.

            And as I also stated to sam, I'm not willing to damage relationships by engaging in some protracted debate over something which, in the overall scheme of my life, really isn't all that important to me. But by the same token, I'm also not willing to be badgered off my position on the topic, which leads me back to my earlier conclusion that we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

          • mightysamurai

            Actually you did. You said, and I quote:

            Sadly, the price men all too often pay for that “convenient” circumcision is likely to be a lifetime of dulled sexual response/pleasure and possibly premature ejaculation.

            Since when has “all too often” meant something different from “common” or “frequent”?

            But whatever. Let's assume that I was misunderstanding your words and you didn't really mean it the way I interpreted it. In that case, I'm afraid I don't understand what your argument is. If male circumcision does not consistently impair arousal in men, then it isn't comparable to female genital mutilation at all, now is it?

            I'll grant you that the hygiene argument for male circumcision is flimsy, but that hardly proves we should “put an end to” male circumcision. It only proves that one of the common arguments in favor of it is not-so-solid. So in reality, you haven't really given us any evidence to “put an end to” male circumcision, just undermined one of the common arguments in favor of it.

          • Mr. EMT

            I wouldn't say flimsy, and I challenge you to find many doctors and healthcare professionals who would say different. I am sure you will find a few who will say that “there is no medical proof” etc. And im also sure you would find these same doctors are also not circumsized and are praying to whatever deity they don't loose their junk to funk rot while they say the published response.
            But let me put it in a way that common sense can explain it to you…
            Having funk on(in?) your junk, sealed away in a warm dark area until you are able to wash it (daily shower?) does not SOUND safe.

            Ok, so when I went to Wal Mart today I stopped in to the public restroom so a common thing, this dude had his peter out and was scrubbing it in the sink, like we all do right?
            I'm kidding, i saw nothing like that. In my life I have never witnessed someone scrubbing their peter in the sink in public (not saying peter hasn't had a good scrub in public and someone hasnt witnessed it)
            Just saying having your peter covered in foreskin can very likely get you in more trouble than not.

            I am also saying, there is absolutely no health benifit at all to mutilating a female. No one can even argue that there is.
            The two can not compare.

          • http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

            Since when has “all too often” meant something different from “common” or “frequent”?

            But whatever.

            All too often, as in 'whatever frequency with which it occurs, is too frequent'.

            But whatever, is right. Let's not get trapped in mindless syntax parsing debates. They lead nowhere, and rather quickly at that.

            My “argument”, is really an expression of my views on the nature of the human body, sam. I believe that our bodies, male and female, are fine as they are and further, that modification of those bodies isn't desirable in my eyes. For me, it's all down to my belief that none of the genital modification procedures under discussion are necessary for optimal human functioning, so why do them?

            The only reasons I can conjure up for doing them are for reasons of religion, social acceptance or fashion, none of which strike me as meaningful reasons to perform a medical procedure. To expand that thought for just a moment, I see piercings, tattoos, and elective cosmetic surgery in much the same light (similar but not precisely equivalent to one another – just to be very clear about it). But to return to the topic at hand, my opinion is the same about all of the procedures, not just one of them – circumcision, ritual nick, clitordectomy and everything in between. I see these procedures as representative of a continuum of behaviours, which is different than saying that I think they're equivalent to one another. The various procedures share some similarities, while differing in degree of impact or seriousness of consequences. What I'm questioning is the value of the whole continuum of behaviours, rather than taking the route of selectively choosing to support some and not others.

            Were it to become a social trend to routinely perform Prince Albert piercings on little boys, I'd not favour that practice either. Nor would I support ritual tattooing of the pubic area of either gender. To me, they'd be just more behaviours on the same continuum. I'm suggesting that since there's no compelling logical reason to do any of them, why perform any of them? It's really a very simple “argument”.

            I do wish to establish, however, that I'm not a wild-eyed social campaigner on the issue, sam. I'm merely stating what I believe on the topic. I'm not wishing to damage interpersonal relationships over the issue, but just as surely, I'm not wishing to change my views based on others beliefs, no matter how much I may be badgered.

          • http://twitter.com/warnerthuston warnerthuston

            You know, MS, I always wonder that myself. How exactly do we determine that those with a circumcision have less sexual pleasure than those without? Do we have all sorts of evidence from men that were uncircumcised as a sexually active adult that testified that he had less sexual feeling after an adult circumcision? If so, I've never seen it!

  • baoxian

    This practice is barbaric, plain and simple. It predates Islam and doesn't even appear in the Koran. It has as much to do with “religion” as the sacrement of marriage equates to clubbing a woman and dragging her into your cave.

    I'm Islamic immigrants want to behave like barbarians, let them do it back in the caves of their home country.

  • TheDickNixon

    Islam is a false religion. Maybe people will now realize that Nixon is a. right and b. Islam is a false religion. A pagan death cult, if you will.

  • whats_up

    Warner, as usual you are lying through your teeth. Here is exactly what the AAP says:

    The American Academy of Pediatrics:

    1. Opposes all forms of FGC that pose risks of physical or psychological harm.
    2. Encourages its members to become informed about FGC and its complications and to be able to recognize physical signs of FGC.
    3. Recommends that its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out harmful forms of FGC.
    4. Recommends that its members provide patients and their parents with compassionate education about the physical harms and psychological risks of FGC while remaining sensitive to the cultural and religious reasons that motivate parents to seek this procedure for their daughters.

    • StanW

      And once again, your equivication and appeasement of savages (much like your stupidity) knows no bounds.

      What the AAP did was play a semantics game. They came out against FGM, but then said a small nick was OK. All they did was mince words and define FGM as something else for their own purpose, which was appeasement.

      As the example I read states, it would be like coming out against beheadings, but allowing the victims throat to be slit.

      • whats_up

        Stan,

        They never said a small nick was okay, they stated that some doctors thought it okay, over and over in the article that Warner posts the AAP condemns FGM, did you even read the article. Pathetic Stan, pathetic.

        • StanW

          Do you ever get tired of lying, crthns?

          The said FGM was bad, but “advocate only pricking or incising the clitoral skin as sufficient to satisfy cultural requirements“. All they did was redefine their “pricking or incising” as NOT FGM.

    • http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

      Semantics, WU, as Stan said, just semantics. The first statement is so broad as to be nonsense.

  • UFKA_Smithwick

    I wonder what the feminists have to say on this?

    Ah yeah, crickets.

    Every other culture it seems can get away with beating, raping and oppressing their women simply by claiming that it is their culture.

  • Don L

    Why get excited, the medical profession is also complicit in the slaughter of 50 million American citizens?

  • JohnH

    Why do so many people condemn FGM, but approve and practice MGM? Doesn't God create boy babies to be just as perfect as girl babies?

    • Mr. EMT

      You're an idiot.

    • UFKA_Smithwick

      Not to defend it (personally I don't care either way). But male circumscision is not really damaging to men and may even have health benefits (disputable, but it certainly isn't harmful).

      Whereas female mutilation is done to prevent women from having sex and not for any benefit to the woman.

    • mightysamurai

      Pathetic troll is pathetic. Flagged.

Advertisement
Featured Video

The History of Ernesto Che Guevara – A Short Story

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”
Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth
Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers
The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation
The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans
Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders
Advertisement
User Info