Female Genital Mutilation Approved By AAP

[Herbwoman39]

The American Association of Pediatrics approved the nicking or incising of the infant or adolescent clitoris as an option to ritual genital mutilation. http://skepchick.org/blog/2010/05/just-a-little-prick/

When I first read this, I was incensed beyond words to the point where I was unable to articulate in any way that wasn't a curse word.

I haven't calmed down very much so this post is rated PG-13 for language.

A MEDICAL organization. People who are SUPPOSED to use science as a guide and not a barbaric ritual. Have APPROVED a LESSER version of female genital mutilation.

WHAT. THE. FUCK??

The clitoris has 8000 nerve endings. And they think a prick or incision on an infant or adolescent female's clitoris that is performed by a US DOCTOR is ACCEPTABLE!!!

I reiterate: WHAT. THE. FUCK???

[TwylaTwobits]

I find this absolutely horrifying but after some research I better understand the American Academy of Pediatrics reasoning.

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.

I am not endorsing this, but I do wonder how many girls this will save from having their parents take them out of the country for an even more barbaric form of it.

I just can't think of a single instance that it would be medically necessary so I'm hoping that part of the statement will keep it from happening at all until the courts decide on the issue. (I assume we will have lawsuits all around from concerned physicians, rights groups and the ACLU)

[MarieDelta]

article here

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/intact-america-blasts-american-academy-of-pediatrics-call-to-weaken-us-ban-on-all-forms-of-female-genital-cutting-as-outrageous-and-unethical-92987489.html

Outrageous!

Not going to get into another debate here, but IMO folks really need to leave all kids the way they were born , IF they want to be modified after they've grown up enough to make such a decision then, go for it.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

That is Sooo fucking sick. It might be the norm in other countrys, but I see no valid Purpose for it....I cant say anything eles on this.
Disgusted Cat

[TaylorMade]

I don't even know what to say to this.

Just no.

*Taylor*

[TwylaTwobits]

I found a few links on the New York Times website about this
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/femalegenitalmutilation/index.html

Like I said I am not in favor of any ritual circumcision of females, but I do understand the reasoning. Especially when reading about an Ethiophian father who took scissors to his two year old daughter to remove her entire clitoris as it is practiced in his country.

I look at this the same way I view abortion, while I personally would never have one, I don't want another woman dying in a back alley from a botched one because it was made illegal.

All I'm saying here, is calm the knee jerk reactions and actually read that that are trying to end FGM all together and offer this procedure which removes the prepuce on the clit (like male circumcision) rather than the entire clitoris which is practiced in more countries than I care to think about.

Yes, it is horrifying to anyone with an ounce of decency, but there are a lot of things in this world practiced in other cultures in the name of religion that a lot of people find horrific.

So to save a two year old the pain of having it done without anesthesia at her untrained father's hand with scissors and risking death. I say do your best to save the life and the clit of that girl.

[Hephaestion]

Ethiopian, Muslim by any chance?

Terrible. The committee who allowed this should be vetted literally and metaphorically.

In some societies, embarrassing one's parents results in death to the individual. What then, a medically approved mercy killing?

The Cupid Stunts!

(God bless Spoonerisms)

[darkeyes]

Its appalling.. and makes me feel physically sick... there is no justification for any change to the genitals of a female save for sound medical reasons. or at the behest of the individual concerned when she is old enough, aware enough and informed enough to make any such decision for herself.. cultural reasons are quite simply inadequate.. a parent has NO say in this and no medical institution should get itself involved except on the basis I outlined..

[Bluebiyou]

The American Association of Pediatrics approved the nicking or incising of the infant or adolescent clitoris as an option to ritual genital mutilation. http://skepchick.org/blog/2010/05/just-a-little-prick/

When I first read this, I was incensed beyond words to the point where I was unable to articulate in any way that wasn't a curse word.

I haven't calmed down very much so this post is rated PG-13 for language.

A MEDICAL organization. People who are SUPPOSED to use science as a guide and not a barbaric ritual. Have APPROVED a LESSER version of female genital mutilation.

WHAT. THE. FUCK??

The clitoris has 8000 nerve endings. And they think a prick or incision on an infant or adolescent female's clitoris that is performed by a US DOCTOR is ACCEPTABLE!!!

I reiterate: WHAT. THE. FUCK???
I know exactly how you feel; exactly.

But, wow, what's with the sudden hype?
Doing this sort of thing was okay on this web site when it was being done to a male...
What changed morally between then and now?
Now that its recommended by doctors, it's okay to do to females too.
The girls who have this done will still be able to bear children.
Recommended by doctors was the best argument (the only remotely valid argument) in the other thread.
Are we suddenly applying a brand new morality that we didn't possess in the last argument?
I don't understand what this 'moral' fuss is about simply because the shoe is on the other foot.

[brutal_priestess]

The moral fuss is the reasoning behind the ritual. If I recall correctly it's to discourage females to...find pleasure in sex. That the presence of the clitoris leads to promiscuity? In any case, it's yet one more cultural example of the degradation women still experience. There are still a few defenses left to male circumcision, but as far as I've heard there's no good reason to circumcise or remove the entire clitoris.

[JP1986UM]

I get so upset at this, it makes me just wanna throw up.

Instead of offering to do it, perhaps an alternative suggestion:

Sir, you wanna clip the clitoris of your daughter is that correct? Ok, well, in this country we allow that and endorse it as long as I can stand underneathe you and at the slightest cry from your daughter when its done, I get to cut off your dick at the same time with a pair of scissors. Fair?

Ok, sign here. I'll go get the nurse.....

[Pasadenacpl2]

I know exactly how you feel; exactly.

But, wow, what's with the sudden hype?
Doing this sort of thing was okay on this web site when it was being done to a male...
What changed morally between then and now?
Now that its recommended by doctors, it's okay to do to females too.
The girls who have this done will still be able to bear children.
Recommended by doctors was the best argument (the only remotely valid argument) in the other thread.
Are we suddenly applying a brand new morality that we didn't possess in the last argument?
I don't understand what this 'moral' fuss is about simply because the shoe is on the other foot.


First: Thanks Taylor for the insight. That the medical association is trying to avoid actual Female Circumcision puts this in a MUCH better light. A small nick that is for ritual purposes and won't affect anything at all later is much easier to handle.

Blue, I asked myself this question yesterday after reading this. 1. I know that this is wrong. 2. I have no problem with male circumcision. And I spent a good portion of my night trying to figure out why the difference. Was I being hypocritical, or is there a difference that I just can't put my finger on?

I'm going with the latter, and I'll tell you why. First, this female procedure is carried out whether there are clean facilities for it or not. When we say mutilation, it is the girls who are forever scarred because their headwife did it with sharpened stones. This procedure is done no matter how cruelly, no matter how crudely, and no matter the ramifications to the girl. Usually it is also done as puberty hits. While Taylor points out that the medical community is trying to stop that, no amount of sterilization gets the connotations removed from this ritual.

Further, the circumcision of women is fully meant to reinforce the idea that men are the power and that women are powerless. Male circumcision carries none of the emotional baggage that female does. In the US, at least, being circumcised is the norm. We don't think about it (with the possible exception of some folks who happen to hang out on gay sites) for the most part. 90% of mainstream porn features circumcised men. It just is. Female Circumcision, however, not only carries the baggage emotionally, but physically as well. That even in America, if you are a woman, your body is owned by someone else. And you have the scarred tattoo to prove it.

I'll go even further, and note that there is nothing in the Qaran that requires this, whereas there IS mention of male circumcision as a requirement in the bible. So, of the two, one is at least based in the holy texts of that culture, and the other is purely for the idea that men own women, and that women's sex and sexuality is to be controlled by men.

Are they similar? Yes. Are they also vastly different for a variety of reasons? Yes.

Pasa

[Long Duck Dong]

I am like you pasa, I took a long time before replying....

I can see what the medical profession is trying to do..... reach a compromise that works for both parties.... as the alternative, is the young girl gets sent overseas to have it done....

what is the lesser of two evils, a nick or slight incision or the complete removement....

we are very vocal about the issue of female circumcision.... and against it.... yet when a medical group look at ways to bringing a end to it or a way that can work for for both parties.... they get slammed....

so I have to ask.... has anybody got a better solution....and I mean be reasonable, ...you are dealing with people that will do it anyway if your solution doesn't work for them

[JP1986UM]

yes, actually, you sit down and talk to the family in conference about why its a huge mistake and how it will lead to infection, possible psychological issues later in her life, and is in fact, illegal and you can remove the child immediately if they vow to move forward with it.

This, like many other things, is a mandatory reportable offense and we can take the child without them even batting an eyelash. Now, lets face it, I don't wanna look a Muslim male in the eye and tell him his daughter is being confiscated until a hearing for an attempted child sexual assault is concluded, for many reasons....

But if I felt like, at the end of the meeting, that they were going to persist, I would have no recourse than protect my patient.

I have discussed this issue with some other doctors and they agree. The AAP took the cop out avenue and decided to accommodate yet attempt to stem the tide. All it takes is time, patient education, and a firm hand in most cases.

[darkeyes]

I am like you pasa, I took a long time before replying....

I can see what the medical profession is trying to do..... reach a compromise that works for both parties.... as the alternative, is the young girl gets sent overseas to have it done....

what is the lesser of two evils, a nick or slight incision or the complete removement....

we are very vocal about the issue of female circumcision.... and against it.... yet when a medical group look at ways to bringing a end to it or a way that can work for for both parties.... they get slammed....

so I have to ask.... has anybody got a better solution....and I mean be reasonable, ...you are dealing with people that will do it anyway if your solution doesn't work for them

I wonder why I am unsurprised about your post Duckie.. seems to me its a bit like saying to a murderer.. what you propose is illegal under our law but we will assist u in making the person brain dead and keep him alive technically oin life support.. an extreme example sure but morally there is no discernable difference.. a wrong is a wrong and we should never allow our medical profession to be a party to it..

[rissababynta]

I am like you pasa, I took a long time before replying....

I can see what the medical profession is trying to do..... reach a compromise that works for both parties.... as the alternative, is the young girl gets sent overseas to have it done....

what is the lesser of two evils, a nick or slight incision or the complete removement....

we are very vocal about the issue of female circumcision.... and against it.... yet when a medical group look at ways to bringing a end to it or a way that can work for for both parties.... they get slammed....

so I have to ask.... has anybody got a better solution....and I mean be reasonable, ...you are dealing with people that will do it anyway if your solution doesn't work for them


Like you and Pasa, I too sat back and said "Now wait a minute...they aren't removing the clit...it's essentially the same thing as a male circumcision." I don't agree with the clit being removed the same way that I disagree with the entire tip of a penis being removed...which is essentially the same thing. But during circumcision...the entire clit or tip of a penis is not removed so I guess therefore it's not so bad :p

Yes, I guess it is true that this is a bit more horrifying just because of the stigma that follows female circumcision. The practices behind it...the psychological baggage of it...yes in a way it is greatly different than a male. But if this is the way they are reaching a compromise with those to allow it to be done, for those who choose to go that route, I really don't think it is a horrible decision. By doing it this way, it is not only making it a safer situation for those who would be crazy enough to do it themselves but it is also keeping it safe and clean in a medically professional environment so hopefully the psychological aspect behind this practice will not be such a big part of the procedure.

The way I personally feel is that if I can sit here and say that I'm not opposed of male circumcision...as long as it is the same thing being done in the same manner so as the child is safe then I can not be opposed to this either.

[MarieDelta]

I stand by my belief that we need to leave children alone until they are able to make a decsion regarding their genitals.

If they decide they want it, after they have grown enough to make a decision, fine. Otherwise leave their privates alone.

M/F/I makes no difference to me. Unless it is medically required.

The arguement that they will just go elsewhere is not acceptable for other types of crimes, why is that the case here?

[TwylaTwobits]

I stand by my belief that we need to leave children alone until they are able to make a decsion regarding their genitals.

If they decide they want it, after they have grown enough to make a decision, fine. Otherwise leave their privates alone.

M/F/I makes no difference to me. Unless it is medically required.

The arguement that they will just go elsewhere is not acceptable for other types of crimes, why is that the case here?

Marie that is not the complete argument. They will go elsewhere where this is practiced barbarically without anesthesia and with a great deal of physical mutilation to the child. This way at least encourages something that satisfies the religious beliefs of the parents while still keeping the child safe and with her clitoris she will be able to experience pleasure. I find the reactions to this disturbing, it is clear that the ultimate goal is complete eradication of it. But if you disagree someone breathes, do you expect them to stop? You are talking 1000's of years of cultural identity to get people educated over, and you are overlooking a fact that in some countries where this is practiced a woman is not considered attractive to her husband unless this is done. I understand people have strong opinions but it doesn't mean you have to form a lynch mob because you don't agree with the only compromise that they could possibly see that would not result in the death of more children. So what I'm getting out of some of your posts is that you would much rather any doctor in the US refuse to do this procedure and send the children to other countries where it's practiced without regard to the sanitary procedures necessary and winding up with the entire clitoris removed. That to me is a far worse sentence than a little prick... but I guess I'd rather kids not risk death for religion.

[MarieDelta]

Marie that is not the complete argument. They will go elsewhere where this is practiced barbarically without anesthesia and with a great deal of physical mutilation to the child. This way at least encourages something that satisfies the religious beliefs of the parents while still keeping the child safe and with her clitoris she will be able to experience pleasure. I find the reactions to this disturbing, it is clear that the ultimate goal is complete eradication of it. But if you disagree someone breathes, do you expect them to stop? You are talking 1000's of years of cultural identity to get people educated over, and you are overlooking a fact that in some countries where this is practiced a woman is not considered attractive to her husband unless this is done. I understand people have strong opinions but it doesn't mean you have to form a lynch mob because you don't agree with the only compromise that they could possibly see that would not result in the death of more children. So what I'm getting out of some of your posts is that you would much rather any doctor in the US refuse to do this procedure and send the children to other countries where it's practiced without regard to the sanitary procedures necessary and winding up with the entire clitoris removed. That to me is a far worse sentence than a little prick... but I guess I'd rather kids not risk death for religion.

Its acceptable in many countries for a husband to beat his wife and his children. Should that be acceptable here?

In some cases it is acceptable to kill or scar a young woman for being seen with a young man. Should that be acceptable here?

For what its worth, I dont think this should be acceptable anywhere just like foot binding(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8966942) or breast ironing(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/04/AR2010030404489.html.) Should we allow young girls to have radical mastectomies so that they can follow their cultural dictates?

I'm not saying that we need to hang the Drs, but I think this is a questionable decision.

I think its something we need to actively campaign against.

[TwylaTwobits]

And I don't agree with it either, Marie, but I'm pointing out this is a step towards ERADICATING IT not propetuating it. They are trying to replace the complete removal under barbaric circumstances to a medical procedure here that both satisfies whatever religious practice the family has and leaves her clitoris. They are trying to save female children from mutilation at the hands of non clinical people who would not administer anesthesia and would take the entire clitoris. Right or wrong at least agree it's a step that will save the lives of some children. Small steps when dealing with centuries of traditions and values. There are places on this earth that eat cow meat, people in India think it's sacred. That we are barbaric for doing so. Should we allow the people in India to tell us that we can't eat meat cause it's wrong in their eyes? We'd look at em as we sliced off a piece of perfectly cooked ribeye and say you are out of your mind.

I am for saving kids lives. A small step has been taken in that direction yet everyone is all hot under the collar about it. It's something that should be eradicated but it's going to take time. You don't just pass a law and say it's illegal, if it's their culture they will continue it legal or no. This way a child has the chance to grow up and actually be close to what we view as normal. Yet beauty is in the eye of the beholder, we may find that these girls are shunned because they didn't have a full clit removal. Much too early to tell, but at this point the decision will save a child from a trauma I can't even imagine. Again...small steps are being taken to reach the final good, ERADICATION of FGM.

[MarieDelta]

And I don't agree with it either, Marie, but I'm pointing out this is a step towards ERADICATING IT not propetuating it. They are trying to replace the complete removal under barbaric circumstances to a medical procedure here that both satisfies whatever religious practice the family has and leaves her clitoris. They are trying to save female children from mutilation at the hands of non clinical people who would not administer anesthesia and would take the entire clitoris. Right or wrong at least agree it's a step that will save the lives of some children. Small steps when dealing with centuries of traditions and values. There are places on this earth that eat cow meat, people in India think it's sacred. That we are barbaric for doing so. Should we allow the people in India to tell us that we can't eat meat cause it's wrong in their eyes? We'd look at em as we sliced off a piece of perfectly cooked ribeye and say you are out of your mind.

I am for saving kids lives. A small step has been taken in that direction yet everyone is all hot under the collar about it. It's something that should be eradicated but it's going to take time. You don't just pass a law and say it's illegal, if it's their culture they will continue it legal or no. This way a child has the chance to grow up and actually be close to what we view as normal. Yet beauty is in the eye of the beholder, we may find that these girls are shunned because they didn't have a full clit removal. Much too early to tell, but at this point the decision will save a child from a trauma I can't even imagine. Again...small steps are being taken to reach the final good, ERADICATION of FGM.

I think FGM is only a symptom of a larger illness. These cultures dont value anyones' life that isnt a heterosexual male.

Often in these cultures they allow a woman to be killed if she is even acused of adultery.

Like I have said I am against genital mutilation of all types.

[BiBedBud]

WITH RESPECT: I think some people are confusing the basic facts, and so are reaching the wrong conclusions WRT the issues described in this thread.

Firstly, whether or not a little girl is a US citizen (or a Canadian citizen, since I am in Canada), under US law or Canadian law (among others); she has an inalienable right to security of her person, even if she is barely one minute old, which can easily be interpreted as freedom from harm, assault or certainly, any kind of mutilation. That is the law.

Similarly, American and Canadian doctors (for example), are licensed and regulated and are required by oath and by law to ‘do no harm’. If a ‘procedure’ is medically unnecessary, and also potentially damaging or risky, doctors have an obligation not to perform it. It would seem on the face of it that FGM or any such euphemistically-termed ‘ritual nick’ would fall squarely into the category of a medically unnecessary and harmful procedure (fashion or cultural practice be damned – these are not medical reasons). Moreover, medical doctors are not licensed or insured to engage in any kind of ritual anything, and should rightly face civil and criminal penalties for engaging in it – because it is not medicine, it is mutilation.

If the little girl’s family wants to remove her from the country to have this done to her, they should face prosecution when they return to ‘the West’. Personally, I think it would be a good idea to make FGM a crime with no statute of limitations, which falls under ‘universal jurisdiction’. This would mean that civil and criminal proceedings can be brought against anyone performing or facilitating this criminal act, no matter how long ago it happened, or where in the world it happened.

Accommodation is not always morally justified or defensible. Sometimes, it is plain wrong!

If some crazy person wants to start a ‘religion’ wherein a ritual whipping with a straightened coat hanger is administered to toddlers – should a right-minded society accept that? Of course not! What if that toddler could not grow-up to find a spouse within that ‘religious community’ unless he or she bore the scars of that ritual whipping? Would that provide justification for the iron lashes? Of course not!

But guess what? If our society makes any room whatsoever to accommodate such morally reprehensible practices as beating toddlers with coat hangers, or mutilating their genitals; the practice will grow and spread and become normalized within certain subsets of our society – and this should be seen as an offense to us all. We cannot let this happen! If this means that certain backward people will not want to immigrate to ‘the West’, I don’t see the problem with that. If it means that certain people who would be inclined to have this done to their daughters, instead think twice about the possible ramifications – and decide not to do it – then we can consider that our society is civilized, and has a civilizing effect on people here, and hopefully, on people abroad too.

If you are opposed to FGM, then you should be pushing for prosecutions and penalties – not accommodation! Accommodation will only make a bad problem worse.

In the words of Malcolm X: If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

Ok..maybe I'm not grasping the whole purposes of these proceedures. What are they done For? What valid purpose do they serve, and whom? Is it to cause desensitation to the clitorial area, or is it to make the clit stand out more, is it a cleanliness method like a male circumcision...What?? Circumcisions are usually done when a babyboy is like a day old. seems some of these little girls are like 2 years old. I know this is done in may other cultures, but is it being offered to Americans for their children as well???

I guess what I am asking is: WTF good is it to do this to a child at All?

Cat

[MarieDelta]

Ok..maybe I'm not grasping the whole purposes of these proceedures. What are they done For? What valid purpose do they serve, and whom? Is it to cause desensitation to the clitorial area, or is it to make the clit stand out more, is it a cleanliness method like a male circumcision...What?? Circumcisions are usually done when a babyboy is like a day old. seems some of these little girls are like 2 years old. I know this is done in may other cultures, but is it being offered to Americans for their children as well???

I guess what I am asking is: WTF good is it to do this to a child at All?

Cat

The arguement is that if these people dont do it here , they will take it to their native countries and practice it "the old fashioned way " which has left some with scars.

In their native countries organisations have tried this middle step as a way to gently phase it out. The AAP seems to think that is the way to phase it out here, I'm not aware that this is a mjor problem in the US, but evidently its enough of an issue that they think this is the way to save some lives.

My issue is that we are condoning a practice that disrespects a young childs bodily rights. Which, to me, seems to be an issue amongst these very cultures. They do not respect anyone who isnt a male heterosexual, everyone else can be treated as some type of property.

[rissababynta]

I guess I feel the same way about this as I feel about male circumcision...it's a private choice that the family makes. To each their own. If you don't like it and don't agree with it, then don't have it done to your kids...beyond that...mind your business :) Live and let live. I see this way with abortion too. It's something that is legal when done in a safe environment...if you don't want an abortion then don't get one...if you do the option is available to you. But you'd be damned if you think you are ever going to get any respect from me for jumping down my throat and telling me what I can and can not do in a situation that is mine and mine alone.

[Bluebiyou]

...
First, this female procedure is carried out whether there are clean facilities for it or not. When we say mutilation, it is the girls who are forever scarred because their headwife did it with sharpened stones. This procedure is done no matter how cruelly, no matter how crudely, and no matter the ramifications to the girl. Usually it is also done as puberty hits.

Whoa, you're inventing data here.
In the same cultures that use sharpened stones for female circumcision, use similar/same tools for male circumcision. You have not implied that since there are tribes in the world that mutilate the male in very unsterile ways that therefore all the people of the world mutilate the males in the same unsterile way.
Also, you aren't, you really aren't implying MGM doesn't leave the male forever scarred... are you? What do you propose happens to the scar tissue on the male? Some kind of new magic?
Many if not most (you'd know this if you were read on the subject) female circumcisions are performed in equally the same clean/unclean way as the males are.
This part of your argument has no weight.


Further, the circumcision of women is fully meant to reinforce the idea that men are the power and that women are powerless.
This is a judgement call from an outsider. Pure slander/conjecture.
This is not a supportive argument given by people (including women doctors) who approve and support female circumcision.
Let's try the slander from the opposite angle.
"Gee, Mr. and Mrs. American, Canadian, or Australian, when the doctor came up to you and told you he wanted to cut off part of your son's penis and kill just enough pleasurable sensation as to still allow ejaculation, and he wanted you to pay him for it, and he wanted to sell the flesh afterwards to a cosmetic company, how did you respond? You said "Yes."?!? Why/how could you do that to an innocent baby? What crime had the baby commited to deserve that?"

Male circumcision carries none of the emotional baggage that female does. In the US, at least, being circumcised is the norm. We don't think about it (with the possible exception of some folks who happen to hang out on gay sites) for the most part. 90% of mainstream porn features circumcised men. It just is.
Yes, as long as our brand of mutilation is practiced and sustained it will be an integral part of our culture. But how is that different than FGM? You've made no point here.

Female Circumcision, however, not only carries the baggage emotionally, but physically as well. That even in America, if you are a woman, your body is owned by someone else. And you have the scarred tattoo to prove it.

You've been watching Oprah again. Most women don't carry this emotional baggage because it's normal in their culture! Sheesh! Only those who tune into outside (their culture) radical media that tells them they're missing something. But how can they miss something they've never enjoyed in adult life?


I'll go even further, and note that there is nothing in the Qaran that requires this, whereas there IS mention of male circumcision as a requirement in the bible. So, of the two, one is at least based in the holy texts of that culture,

Okay, so your finally coming to the point of realizing that sexually mutilating children, male and/or female, or even child sacrifice, is custom, nothing more. just local custom (albeit sometimes 'local' covers a lot of area).

and the other is purely for the idea that men own women, and that women's sex and sexuality is to be controlled by men.

Again, just repeat of the same slander/conjecture from outside a culture.


Are they similar? Yes. Are they also vastly different for a variety of reasons? Yes.

Pasa
The vast difference is simple and not so vast. Our custom, which you have done and are clearly defending with all sorts of mental gymnastics, because coming to the conclusion you have harmed your own children is unnacceptable to your ego (same goes for a few others).
FGM is pretty much the same custom just applied differently.
The purpose of MGM and FGM is to destroy genital sensitivity up to the point of still being able to procreate. Men have to orgasm to father a child, women don't have to orgasm to have a child. What don't you 'get' about this?

With regard to the 'controlled by men', a similar blind stab can be made at mothers who do this to their little boys because of 'penis envy' and acting on her 'castrating woman' impulses, because "it was a penis that did this to me in the first place". Both perspectives have equal merit. Men in the middle east love their daughters just as much as mothers love their sons in the US.

You Pasa, Twayla, and a few other really should be embracing this (FGM endorsement) because now with this new medical endorsement, parents can equally mutilate their son or daughter as a pure matter of loving parental 'choice'.
If you don't see by now.... you clearly don't want to and probably never will (insert more 'my culture/my actions were right and their culture/their actions are wrong'... accented with sufficient mental gymnastic rationalizations to make you feel good).
Until people are educated, FGM and MGM (child sacrifice, as well as many other social ills) will continue as sacred custom. As long as it is 'custom', people will defend doing all sorts of horrible things, as you are evidencing for us.

As a final tribute to Pasa, Twayla, and a few others, look up this article. If you look closely you will see yourselves (your arguments) in a mirror. Mental gymnastics from the other side look so similar to yours.

http://www.antropologi.info/blog/anthropology/2010/female-circumcision

by a female PHD
There are other articles by well educated females (I couldn't find the one by another female doctor I read back in April), supporting female circumcision, if you only look, they are there.
In conclusion:
If you self righteously feel you should help these poor ignorant people escape their custom mutilation, then you should have no trouble with someone outside our culture to help us poor ignorant people escape our custom mutilation. Just realize they will be as stedfastly, willfully, forcefully ignorant as you, clinging to wives tales, half truths (and mostly lies), and twisted logic just like you. With loyalty to their culture's mutilation (just like you), you will be branded as an 'outcast' or 'outsider' or 'instigator' just as I sometimes am. But sometimes the 'good fight' is worth it. If only a single child, male or female is saved from all my efforts, the 'good fight' is worth it!

To repeat/rephrase an earlier statement in another thread:
Circumcision, the more you know, the worse it is. (male and female)

[Hephaestion]

BiBedBud - excellent!

H.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

Well, on the topic of rights and abortion...I dont agree with it in itself, But I Do agree with the reasoning that it should be a woman's choice to do so if she feels she must. Its her body, her right to do so. I feel bad for those that have to have it done, but sometimes need dictates necessity.
Just my :2cents:worth since it was brought up. :}
Cat

[rissababynta]

AND now that people have chose to be assholes and make this a personal battle YET AGAIN...I'm done...have at it guys... I'm moving on to other threads now.

[tommyswing]

I think any male given the choice of having skin removed from his penis or part of the head of his penis taken off would choose the skin, at least I would. Male circumcision has detractors and advocates. The real issue for female circumcision is control, along with Honor Killings ect. BTW who decides what a nick is.

How about instead of a father killing his daughter for dating a man outside her religion we just allow a servere beatdown from the family. I would suggest reading Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, gives a lot of insight into the mindset of people who pratice this barbaric act.

This will not stop backdoor mutilation as there is removal of the vaginal lips and sewing up the vagina so she will stay pure, I don't think anyone who practices this vile act will want to compromise or be satisfyed with a small nick.

[Pasadenacpl2]

AND now that people have chose to be assholes and make this a personal battle YET AGAIN...I'm done...have at it guys... I'm moving on to other threads now.

I realize now that Blue's original question was
not genuine, but was baiting. I realize further that Blue is now trying specifcally to bait me using phrases he knows have angered me in the past. I suppose he's hoping to prove a point.

I offered an opinion and even some insight. I was repaid with personal comments not to mention terrible logic paths. *shrug*

Pasa

[Darkside2009]

Well, for my part I am not in favour of circumcision on children, irrespective of whether they are male or female.

If freely-consenting adults wish to do that to their own bodies, that is another matter entirely.

I think if God made Mankind in his own image, then he must have thought the design was just fine as is.

Abraham has a lot to answer for.

Mention has been made of Cultural influences, but the Chinese at one time practised foot-binding of their females.

Ancient Brits ran around with wode on their faces...cultures evolve through time and education.

Belgium and France are currently in the process of banning the face veil for women in public.

Cultural clashes are nothing new, only education and persuasion will convince such parents to change their mind in the long run.

[Bluebiyou]

Well, ...
Cultural clashes are nothing new, only education and persuasion will convince such parents to change their mind in the long run.

:bowdown::wiggle2::rotate::wiggle2::bowdown:

I couldn't find the happy face clapping.

[Bluebiyou]

I realize now that Blue's original question was
not genuine, but was baiting.
What do you consider my 'original question'?
I'm only trying desperately to challenge you.

I realize further that Blue is now trying specifcally to bait me using phrases he knows have angered me in the past.
Now that's an artful dodge. Yes, there was some baiting, but very little. I'm trying to keep this to Pasa standards... facts, facts, facts.

I suppose he's hoping to prove a point.

I reproved an easy point.
It's wrong to sexually mutilate children. REGARDLESS of your specific custom of mutilating children.
The point did not need to be restated and 'proven' by me to already be true.
It was true before I came along and will be true after I'm gone.


I offered an opinion and even some insight.

Opinion, yes. Insight? You offered rehashed rhetoric, opinionated data. You are floundering, about to drown, in defense of your debate.

I was repaid with personal comments not to mention terrible logic paths. *shrug*
Pasa
The "personal comments" were meant as direct challenges.
You are one of the few MGM folks who offer any logic, take any kind of stand at all. I'm welcoming legitimate, logical debate.
There is no legitimate stand for sexually mutilating children.
And you countered each of my "terrible" logic paths... exactly how?
The paths were too true and applicable for you to do your mental gymnastics around?
As much as I don't want to dis Rissa...
I think her assessment (asshole comment) was a personal cop out. A way to exit without further endangering her ego.
Aside: Yes, I personally objected to Pasa's previous threat(s) on previous threads. Clearly, so did moderator(s). I do not consider previous misbehavior on Pasa's part relevant to this debate and hope all others feel the same on this point. -back to topic-
I don't think Rissa stands alone in - inability to admit wrongdoing.
Until one generation finally takes a stand, admits it's sins, and/or stops the cultural tradition of sexually mutilating children, it will continue; ad infinitum.
It also takes a great or exceptional man or woman to be that generation that stops it (without outside requirement).
I maintain. I stand firm.
This is not opinion, I am merely repeating truth.
It (with very rare exceptions) is, always was, and always will be wrong to sexually harm children through (cultural standard) genital mutilation.
Why don't intelligent folks 'get it'?
...because it's easier to emotionally bury our head in cultural sand...
...and do mental gymnastics to avoid being pinned down...

[TwylaTwobits]

Gee maybe I have to tattoo it on my head for folks to get my point. This is my last post in this thread cause it's like talking to a brick wall sometimes.

I am not for FGM, but this is a ritual nick that would leave the clitoris basically intact but without a bit of skin, just like when males are circumsized. This was offered as a compromise in a world where you can't spit without being sued. You think that ACLU only fights for LGBT rights? I can guarantee if they thought they would get a bit of mileage out of it, they'd be fighting for the right of a foreign family to have this procedure done here rather than take the child out to another country and have her butchered and maybe killed.

So read the actual real news stories regarding what is going on, there are several things in this world I don't agree with and FGM is a big one. But I can actually see what they are trying to do. They flat out said it, "Ultimate goal is eradication of FGM", this is a way to try to keep the complete mutilations from happening, a way to save kids until the changes in cultures that need to be made are made.

It's not gonna happen overnight, that would be like announcing to the world that the sky was not blue but red. What would you do, believe the evidence of your own eyes when you look at the sky or would you just immediately accept everything you believed your whole life was wrong because someone passed a law?

[MarieDelta]

These are the legal rights of a child as defined by the American Bar Association:


What are the legal rights of children?
Children have a unique status under the law. The law defines children as unmarried persons under the age of majority--usually eighteen--who have not left home to support themselves. The law protects children from abuse and neglect. It also entitles them to the protection of the state. Children may be removed from their home if it is necessary to ensure them a safe, supportive environment. This removal may be temporary or permanent.




Modern laws respecting the rights, obligations, and incapacities of children are rooted in ancient customs and practices. In 1765, SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, wrote that parents owe their children three duties: maintenance, protection, and education. Today, these three duties continue, and have been expanded by judicial and legislative advancements. The notion of CHILDREN'S RIGHTS has evolved into a highly controversial and dynamic area of law.

Common law held an infant, also called a minor or child, to be a person less than 21 years old. Currently, most state statutes define the age of majority to be 18. Although a person must attain the age of majority to vote, make a will, or hold public office, children are increasingly being recognized by society, legislatures, and the courts as requiring greater protections and deserving greater rights than they were afforded under common law. The law is caught in a tugof-war between two equally compelling and worthy societal interests: the desire to protect children from harmful situations and from their own immaturity and lack of experience, and the desire to give children as much autonomy as they can bear as soon as they can bear it.



Read more: Infants - Legal Rights Of Children, Child Protection, Constitutional Rights Of Children In The Educational Setting, Age Of Legal Medical Consent http://law.jrank.org/pages/7632/Infants.html#ixzz0nIeuJySp



I suppose it all depends on your defintion of "abuse." But for me, this seems to be within that realm.

Obviously it seems that some people consider children to be more akin to property than people. However, I feel that children ought to be treated with due care and consideration. Meaning their bodies are not ours to do as we would wish, but they are held in trust for them until they are of the majority.

Children are not , nor should they be, considered as extensions of the parent.

[Darkside2009]

Quote: Originally Posted by Pasadenacpl2 I'll go even further, and note that there is nothing in the Qaran that requires this, whereas there IS mention of male circumcision as a requirement in the bible. So, of the two, one is at least based in the holy texts of that culture,


The Old Testament story regarding Abraham and circumcision,can be read at Genesis 17.

It relates an agreement, a covenant between God and Abraham, the latter being 99 years old at the time. That if Abraham served God faithfully and lived a blameless life, then God would guarantee him countless descendants and the land of Canaan as an inheritance.

Circumcision was the outwardly visible sign of this covenant, meant to act as a visual reminder to be loyal to the covenant, to the family and to their own marriages.

Intermarriage with uncircumcised people was held to be a violation of the covenant as was a refusal of the male to be circumcised.

Circumcision in itself was practised by other ancient cultures,(see Jer 9:25-26).

The Bible uses it to symbolize the removal of sin and an old identity, accompanied by inclusion in the covenant community.

There may be a secondary aim, that by de-sensitizing the penis it would act as a curb on promiscuity. Not that that worked.

The New Testament takes a different view. As Jesus established God's new covenant, he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. Thus baptism was to take the place of circumcision, and it too was to be accompanied by faith.

It is not necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised since they are incorporated into the people of God through their faith in Jesus as the Messiah.(See Acts 15:1-29; Rom 2:25-29; Gal 2:1-10; 6:15; Col 2:11-12)

The idea was lay aside the customs of the world and live by faith,(see Jer 31:33-34; Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:16-6:10).

Abraham himself was supposed to have laughed in disbelief at the thought that at 99 he could father children, his wife Sarah, being 90 at the time and barren.

I sometimes wonder, what if Abraham misheard God and God had merely told him he needed to take exercise instead of be circumcised?

I would have liked to have been around then to hear him explain it to everyone.

'Are you sure God said that?'

' Couldn't we just have a nice bracelet and turban like the Sikhs, or a daub of red dye on the forehead and a knotted string around the body, like the Hindus?

'No, it has to be circumcision'

'You're having a laugh, Abe'

'Tell me you're having a laugh, what would God want with all those foreskins?'

'I'm not doing it'

'You are'

'I'm not doing it and you can't make me'

'Yes I can, I'll stab you with my big knife'

'Oh! Okay then'

Like I said, a curious man. Quite why Americans have adopted the practice I don't know. I can only surmise it is the influence of so many Jewish doctors in the US. In Britain and the rest of Europe it is quite rare among Gentiles.

As to female circumcision, I have only ever heard of that among people of the Muslim faith from the poorer African countries. Its intention seems to be a misguided attempt to curb promiscuity and exercise control over women's sexuality.

As to an answer to the problem, I can only see the practice diminishing with more education and persuasion of the parents, that it is a practice that should be abandoned. Undoubtedly, there will be many heated arguments before that happens, as can be seen from this and similar previous threads.

[JP1986UM]

Except that male circumcision also has the added advantage of being a sure fire way to prevent penile cancer and infection control.

Other than that, it has no advantages.

[MarieDelta]

Like I said, a curious man. Quite why Americans have adopted the practice I don't know. I can only surmise it is the influence of so many Jewish doctors in the US. In Britain and the rest of Europe it is quite rare among Gentiles.

.



Routine circumcision as a preventative or cure for masturbation was proposed in Victorian times in America. Masturbation was thought to be the cause of a number of diseases. The procedure of routine circumcision became commonplace between 1870 and 1920, and it consequently spread to all the English-speaking countries (England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). None of these countries now circumcise the majority of their male children, a distinction reserved today for the United States (in the UK, in fact, nonreligious circumcision has virtually ceased). Yet, there are still those who promote this social surgery, long after the masturbation hysteria of the past century has subsided.

http://www.cirp.org/pages/whycirc.html

[Hephaestion]

If it is such a minimal invasion of corporal integrity (one is given the impression that the procedure is as minimal as a pin prick) why does it require the participation of medics? Someone else has said 'define a nick'

FGM of any sort is against the Law of the Land.

It is medically irrational.

It confers no benefits other than identity with a gang.

It is against the moral code of the west.

If people get gratification from messing aroudn with the genitals of a minor for ritual then that should count as paedophilic assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

What else needs to be said other than where is the site for lodging one's protest?

.

[Long Duck Dong]

I wonder why I am unsurprised about your post Duckie.. seems to me its a bit like saying to a murderer.. what you propose is illegal under our law but we will assist u in making the person brain dead and keep him alive technically oin life support.. an extreme example sure but morally there is no discernable difference.. a wrong is a wrong and we should never allow our medical profession to be a party to it..

I agree, a wrong is a wrong.... but honestly.... a compromise has been offered..... something that could result in a changing of mindsets in regards to FGM and maybe over the next few decades, seeing a near total end to it completely......

but it appears that most of the people in the thread, would perfer that the AAP did nothing at all..... and all that would do is leave the situation unaddressed.....
then we would have people asking why nothing is being done about FGM...

while the child is protected under us law, its not in other countries.... and the us is powerless to stop parents taking the kids to other countries to be totally mutilated..... so the only thing they can do, is try to stop that happening, with a compromise and hope like hell it works....

the other alternatives, are simple
1) ignore the issue totally.
2) do the age old tried and tested method of near wipe cultures out and try to enforce our views as right

the us is a country that is trying to say, FGM is wrong, cruel and totally uncalled for.....
they are saying, we do not mutilate our children.... just ignore the unwanted pregnancies, child parents, solo parents, kids in foster homes, broken families, people in therapy and counselling, abortions, adultery, infidelity, poly marriages, open marriages, divorces etc etc

and they are saying it to people with a culture and history, of life long marriage, no tolerance of adultery and infidelity etc etc......

I do not agree with a lot of things..... but like I asked..... who can come up with a better solution....instead of just another * bash somebody * thread, as is now commonplace in bisexual.com.......

yeah I support the AAP, cus as much as I disagree with what they are doing.... they are working to stop FGM on a much larger scale..........
if any other group can put in place a better option that is working, then yes my support would shift........

they are dammed if they do, dammed if they don't....and everybody can be a critic of anything, but very few are out there actually doing something about it on a constructive level......

so tell me darkeyes..... what you are supporting.... the AAP, or the matter to be stopped, swept under the carpet and no alternative for many girls.......cos you are not going stop FGM by posting in a forum

[darkeyes]

so tell me darkeyes..... what you are supporting.... the AAP, or the matter to be stopped, swept under the carpet and no alternative for many girls.......cos you are not going stop FGM by posting in a forum

I am active, and contribute to http://www.forwarduk.org.uk/ thats what I do. Not simply contributing money either.. I assist in fund raising and trying to increase awareness in many different places .. previously in the Labour Party.. but in my previous Trade Union, the local Trades Council, the Student Union, the EIS which is my present Trade union, I write to and make representations to MPs, to Embassies and consulates particularly of African States.. thats what I do Duckie.. a wrong is a wrong.. and we should not have any truck with it..

Thats what I do Duckie... I dont JUST write to forums such as this... just as I dont JUST open me cyber gob about many other issues I am a member of an act on behalf of many ogther issues I belive are important.. and those I am unable to find the time to do so I contribute as much as I am able to afford...

..so wheesht man.. a principle is a principle and a wrong a wrong.. especially where children are involved...

[Long Duck Dong]

nods... I understand that, fran, but I was asking,..... what is right, the AAP's compromise.... or no action at all.....

I personally do not agree with the AAP's actions.... but nor do I agree with FGM either...... so I am caught between a rock and a hard place....
if I go against the AAP then I am saying that any attempt to compromise and hopefully change peoples pro FGM stance, is wrong..... but if I support the AAPS attempt to try and limit FGM, I appear to be supporting their actions....

honestly, I would like to see a end to FGM.... and the AAP not have to act the way they are doing.... but like you I am realistic in that a lot of changes will not happen over night......

[Pasadenacpl2]

nods... I understand that, fran, but I was asking,..... what is right, the AAP's compromise.... or no action at all.....

And that's the real point, right there. You only have those two options currently. You will not get option C (to eliminate the practice altogether). Option C, in the realm of what is possible right now, does not exist.

Pasa

[darkeyes]

You will not get option C (to eliminate the practice altogether).
Pasa

You wont? Once people said you would never abolish slavery in the west, or homosexuality would be made legal.. people said women would never get the vote.. that Trade unions would never be legalised.. people said you could never abolish child labour.. there is a whole host of things people said you could not get in this world..odd thing..they were gotten.. so just dont give me the bollox of what u will never get Pasa babes.. cos I know different.. and you dont get them by compromising all the time.. some things cannot be compromised on...

[Pasadenacpl2]

You wont? Once people said you would never abolish slavery in the west, or homosexuality would be made legal.. people said women would never get the vote.. that Trade unions would never be legalised.. people said you could never abolish child labour.. there is a whole host of things people said you could not get in this world..odd thing..they were gotten.. so just dont give me the bollox of what u will never get Pasa babes.. cos I know different.. and you dont get them by compromising all the time.. some things cannot be compromised on...

Did you not read the 'right now' part that was even italicized?

Makes me wonder why I bother to post, when people aren't going to read what I've actually posted.

Pasa

[Canticle]

I have watched documentaries about this subject. I have seen what was done to the women. Pharaonic (or female) circumcision is an evil thing.

I watch a documentary which told of unskilled women, carrying out this disgusting act, attacking not only the clitoris, but removing the labia minora too. Then cutting the labia majora, in such a fashion, that only a hole, large enough to allow urine to flow, menstrual blood to leave the body and penetration, by the male penis, to take place. These women often suffer infections. Some serious.

When women gave/give birth, they had/have, to be cut open, surgically and then sutured, to return them to pre-birth of child status. It showed doctors in one hospital, trying to save the life of a 15 year old bride.

Her husband had not been able to enter her body, through what turned out to be a rather small hole, so he had taken a knife to her, attempted to cut his way in and not only did he damage the poor girls vagina, but sent the knife through the wall of the vagina, into the bowel.

Pharaonic circumcision is evil and should be fought. No exceptions or comprimises, should be made. I don't think male circumcision and female Pharaonic circumcision, can even be compared, such is the magnitude of disfigurement caused to young girls. One is sexual abuse, done, not in the name of religion, but has come about through cultural behaviour. It's not only Muslims, who will do this terrible thing to girls. Both are unnecessary, unless, with the male, there is some problem with the foreskin, that requires medical intervention and surgical removal.

You fight evil......you don't compromise and sign a treaty wth the devil!!!!

[Lady_Passion]

WTF indeed!


I find this absolutely horrifying but after some research I better understand the American Academy of Pediatrics reasoning.

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.

I am not endorsing this, but I do wonder how many girls this will save from having their parents take them out of the country for an even more barbaric form of it.

I just can't think of a single instance that it would be medically necessary so I'm hoping that part of the statement will keep it from happening at all until the courts decide on the issue. (I assume we will have lawsuits all around from concerned physicians, rights groups and the ACLU)
Agreed.


I'm guessing it's related to hardcore beliefs and melding of other cultures into organizations like AAP that allowed this to happen. The U.S. has always been a melting pot. We're beginning to feel that more emphatically than ever.

Wondering also if this will be a step toward going beyond infancy to girls and women who did not have these procedures done as a baby. Thinking that's next on the agenda :2cents:

[Bluebiyou]

Fran,
hold the course.
Would you have been wrong to oppose the conquistadors, for their war/murder against the less technological savvy Aztecs (for their gold)?
Would you have been wrong to oppose the genocide of American Indian for European invaders to possess all of their land?
Would you have been wrong to support Susan B Antony and eventually the suffragettes in their often persecuted and socially disgraced efforts for women's rights?
Would you have been wrong to have been an abolishionist prior to slavery receiving it's final (legal) worldwide blow in the USA in the 1800's?
Would you have been wrong to oppose the dehumanization, deportation, enslavement, and destruction of Jews, Jehovah's Witness, homosexuals, gypsies, and all sorts of political dissidents in pre WWII Europe?
Not to mention other references by you.
Idealists are often hated and discounted by many who cling to custom and/or prevailing wind.
How long ago was it that several Muslim/Islamic fundamentalists petitioned that their small part of the UK be regressed to Shiite law? OMG.

On the side of successful idealist compromise...
Susan B. Antony abhorred and rejected abortion, or at least so it was said.
Ronald Reagan publicly rejected 'negotiating with terrorists', but pretty unquestionably did to release American hostages in 1981.
Idealists who compromise are a huge risk of losing all - they are no longer idealists. Seldom does compromise lead to a positive end result.
The concept is firm. Children must not be sexually harmed according to local custom.
Once you realize this, there is no going back.
Once you realize an absolute truth, you can only betray the deepest part of yourself by knowingly contradicting it.
There are many, many, 'idiots' who are incapable of this depth.
The people we are surrounded by... won't grasp this (the more intelligent can grasp but refuse to).
"Compromising" is for sociopaths, profiteers, politicians, and the willfully blind.
God be with you Fran.
Blue

[Hephaestion]

Canticle ".....You fight evil......you don't compromise and sign a treaty wth the devil!!!!....."

Seems fair enough in this argument - Agreed.

H.

[Pasadenacpl2]

Fran,
hold the course.
Would you have been wrong to oppose the conquistadors, for their war/murder against the less technological savvy Aztecs (for their gold)?
Would you have been wrong to oppose the genocide of American Indian for European invaders to possess all of their land?
Would you have been wrong to support Susan B Antony and eventually the suffragettes in their often persecuted and socially disgraced efforts for women's rights?
Would you have been wrong to have been an abolishionist prior to slavery receiving it's final (legal) worldwide blow in the USA in the 1800's?
Would you have been wrong to oppose the dehumanization, deportation, enslavement, and destruction of Jews, Jehovah's Witness, homosexuals, gypsies, and all sorts of political dissidents in pre WWII Europe?
Not to mention other references by you.
Idealists are often hated and discounted by many who cling to custom and/or prevailing wind.
How long ago was it that several Muslim/Islamic fundamentalists petitioned that their small part of the UK be regressed to Shiite law? OMG.

On the side of successful idealist compromise...
Susan B. Antony abhorred and rejected abortion, or at least so it was said.
Ronald Reagan publicly rejected 'negotiating with terrorists', but pretty unquestionably did to release American hostages in 1981.
Idealists who compromise are a huge risk of losing all - they are no longer idealists. Seldom does compromise lead to a positive end result.
The concept is firm. Children must not be sexually harmed according to local custom.
Once you realize this, there is no going back.
Once you realize an absolute truth, you can only betray the deepest part of yourself by knowingly contradicting it.
There are many, many, 'idiots' who are incapable of this depth.
The people we are surrounded by... won't grasp this (the more intelligent can grasp but refuse to).
"Compromising" is for sociopaths, profiteers, politicians, and the willfully blind.
God be with you Fran.
Blue

That was an amazing piece of diatribe. Factually wrong in a more than few places. But, wow. *claps* you are certainly able to orate. Or was that fellate? You're so close to Fran's ass it's hard to tell.

I like how anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot. Nice. I love how anyone who doesn't agree can't 'grasp' it. And compromise is for sociopaths? Honestly? You've set yourself up in a nice little world there, where any voice but yours (or those who agree with you) is invalid. Tell me...do they serve chocolate ice cream and can you ride ponies and unicorns there in your world?

Pasa

[Long Duck Dong]

Canticle ".....You fight evil......you don't compromise and sign a treaty with the devil!!!!....."

Seems fair enough in this argument - Agreed.

H.

we tried that, its how we near wiped out a large number of old cultures and ways of life..... using the thinking that their ways were barbaric and our ways were right...... yet even now, we use a lot of the old ways in modern life.....

it seems to me, that there is no possible compromise..... either FGM is ignored, or wiped out..... and we can do neither, to be honest.....
but changing mindsets is a key step to saving many young ladies from FGM

it worked with slavery, tho it finally took a war and a lot of bloodshed to really get things done....
it worked with womans rights to vote, yet again, that too cost lives
its slowly working with LGBT marriage in parts of the us....

how many young ladies are gonna suffer from FGM, if we remove the alternative by the AAP cos people think its wrong .....

what would people say to them? " sorry about the fact you got mutilated, but you see, we were opposed to the alternative for you that could have stopped you being cut up, so do not be angry with us, cos we are fighting for your rights, not to be cut at all..... but there is always collateral damage in every fight, you just happened to be one of the people that lost out.... have a good life..."

seriously, ask yourself, would you smile and hug the people that opposed the alternative to you suffering pain for the rest of your life ???? or would you stop and think, its ok for them, they do not have to suffer the pain ????

I may not be a female, but being a circumcised male, I could understand their point of view..... so think about it, what if it was you facing fgm......

[darkeyes]

it worked with slavery, tho it finally took a war and a lot of bloodshed to really get things done....
......

Not outside of the US Duckie...

[JP1986UM]

Wow, Reagan negotiated with Iran, when he wasn't even President? unquestionably? When it was already proven it didn't happen...wow, I am edumocated nao.

Nevermind they released the hostages ON the day he was inaugurated to embarrass Carter....silly me...:bigrin:

[darkeyes]

That was an amazing piece of diatribe. Factually wrong in a more than few places. But, wow. *claps* you are certainly able to orate. Or was that fellate? You're so close to Fran's ass it's hard to tell.


Pasa

Those who hav ev gotten close 2 the Fran bootie r indeed ver lukky an indeed sensible peeps paasa.. the Fran arse is a remarkably cute arse as it happens.. an those who do get close r honoured in the extreme...:tong:;)

[darkeyes]

Did you not read the 'right now' part that was even italicized?

Makes me wonder why I bother to post, when people aren't going to read what I've actually posted.

Pasa

I didnt miss it Pasa..I ignored it because in my view it means faffing around compromising when no compromise can b morally justified... sumtimes Pasa.. principle is much more important than pragmatism.. and this is 1 such issue.. :)

[Pasadenacpl2]

So...let me see if I get this straight. Let's say that you do get this practice abolished. Let's even be optimistic and say it takes only 5 years to do so....

...what do you tell all of those girls who were still subjected to it in a barbaric fashion rather than one that essentially does not harm them? How do you allow even one more girl to have this done in that fashion when you could stop the practice as it is done today almost immediately?

This is the same type of head in the sand reasoning that has the Christian right saying that "abstinence only" education is the only way, and that there can be no compromise on it, for to compromise is to say that sex out of marriage is ok. Never mind that kids are having babies because they don't know about protection. Never mind that kids aren't taught about STEs until they luck out and read an article or actually get one themselves. Never mind that they are going to have sex anyway. As long as you hold to your moral high horse, you can't be blamed.

A moral soapbox is easy to stand on. Those who get hurt due to the black and white nature of your outlook don't really need to be considered, I suppose.

Pasa

[Pasadenacpl2]

Wow, Reagan negotiated with Iran, when he wasn't even President? unquestionably? When it was already proven it didn't happen...wow, I am edumocated nao.

Nevermind they released the hostages ON the day he was inaugurated to embarrass Carter....silly me...:bigrin:


I remember his speech on election night. He looked right into the camera and told the Iranians that if the hostages were still there when he took office they would regret it. That was a man who knew how to deal with terrorists. In later interviews he said that he was perfectly willing to destroy Iran if they didn't comply.

Pasa

[Canticle]

It amazes me, that so many men, can go on about how brutalising and what a terrible thing, male circumcision is. Yet some of these men can state that give females, 'a little nick,'' is somehow OK. Neither Pharaonic cicumcision, nor ''a little nick.'' are OK. Both are abuse of an innocent.

So....NO.....No compromise!!

[Pasadenacpl2]

Yup. Head in the sand territory Congratulations. Your refusal to acknowlege reality in the face of idealism garauntees that girls will continue to be irreperably damaged.

Good job.

Pasa

[Bluebiyou]

It amazes me, that so many men, can go on about how brutalising and what a terrible thing, male circumcision is. Yet some of these men can state that give females, 'a little nick,'' is somehow OK. Neither Pharaonic cicumcision, nor ''a little nick.'' are OK. Both are abuse of an innocent.

So....NO.....No compromise!!

Sorry Canticle, if I misled. I don't know of any here who despises MGM and truthfully endorses FGM. Sometimes I feign a sarcastic positive FGM stance to help make a point, to see the folly, even to highlight the similarities of the arguments of those supporting either/both.
In the USA, folks are pretty generally blindly accepting MGM yet morally against FGM, it's just our (USA) culture.
So to watch USA folks condemn those people and the horrible practice of FGM, all the while doing a magnificent dance of rationalizing MGM, I try to put the 'shoe on the other foot', hold up a mirror, etc.
Rissa (USA) clearly saw my method and outmaneuvered me by endorsing both FGM and MGM, and thus has moral ground to stand on. "It's a parental 'choice'" ideology.
Although, I savor the irony that the AAP has stated for 20 or 30 years:
"There is no indication for neonatal (male) routine circumcision."
In other words, there is no medical reason to do it. Basically, there's nothing to support it except local custom.

[Canticle]

I think that the 15 year old bride, in the documentary, I watched, died.

[Bluebiyou]

Goll----lee!
Pasa can raise such a counter (albeit confusing) fuss!
On a side note, I loved Reagan. One of the best and most loved presidents since Ike. Although Bush Senior was unquestionably the most qualified, and should have gotten his second term (1993-1997). Bush Sr. would have solved some of the major problems we have today.
But the last I examined the Reagan/hostages issue, the evidence points very much in favor of a well orchestrated political maneuver(s). I could be wrong, sue me. I cried many times the day of the Gipper's funeral. I have no delusions about politics and the dirt that goes along with.
But enough on politics... disregard the Reagan comment. It was more of a - "I (blue) will even admit the (pretty clear) dirty deeds of my absolute favorite and most loved people in a sincere look at morality".
So, back to Pasa.
Goll----lee!
You can raise such a (drive-by troll) fuss!
Dude, let's break it down fast.
I'm pretty sure you have little or no clue (or inclination to seek true morality) regarding MGM or FGM.
The true search of morality is the beacon, the source of hope for the future of mankind, and all you can do is quibble by taking drive-by pot shots.
Pasa, I've been waiting for you to respond with any form of logical debate (since you clearly understand debate), and all I get is drive-by pot shots.
Pasa, you've missed, totally, the underlying supportive arguments for MGM/FGM. You simply counter with pot shots and claim victory.
Pasa, let me spoon feed you.
JP1986UM provided you with 2 of the 4 supportive underlying arguments and you... missed them entirely. 2 of the 4 legs to stand on the supportive side of the MGM/FGM debate and... well really you've hit none of the 4, you simply react with drive-by pot shots, and also I will admit, high school level debate techniques, but no substance.
...Sigh...
Okay, folks.
JP1986UM is very sharp; very well read; but apparently not wanting to take a firm supportive stand of MGM/FGM.
Okay, I'll f****** debate myself since no one 'on the other side' has... (easy blue... tone it down to civil) researched to any scientific degree at all (except JP1986UM(not saying that JP1986UM is sided, just clearly objectively (self? that would be great!) educated)) the only positive (pro) arguments for MGM/FGM.
In the next few days, I'll output careful thesis posts on the points that nearly everyone missed.

[darkeyes]

Yup. Head in the sand territory Congratulations. Your refusal to acknowlege reality in the face of idealism garauntees that girls will continue to be irreperably damaged.

Good job.

Pasa

There is certainly no head in the sand here.. I know exactly what will be going on.. its a case of irreparable damage or irreparable damage.. of course one lot is much more serious and dangerous but the other potentially much more profitable and not without its own risk.. claiming irreparable damage to girls will continue is rich coming from one who preaches the continuance of irreparable damage to boys... again at a very nice profit for the US medical profession...

I will continue to do what I do Pasa.. by keeping my wits about me and my head well and truly held up and my eyes open...

[Bluebiyou]

Aside:
Regarding pure morality:
It was a most pure and sincere "bubble" of pure morality that allowed Thomas Jefferson (freemason) along with others to outline the morally... Etheric (I'm sure there are better/closer words)... foundation of the most extraordinary nation in history, the USA.
It is that pure morality...
that...
that...
allowed such a breach, a quantum leap, from the sins of (up to 1776) "culture"... to continuously aspire to higher levels (in spite of many USA bad wars/politicians since).

[Pasadenacpl2]

There is certainly no head in the sand here.. I know exactly what will be going on.. its a case of irreparable damage or irreparable damage.. of course one lot is much more serious and dangerous but the other potentially much more profitable and not without its own risk.. claiming irreparable damage to girls will continue is rich coming from one who preaches the continuance of irreparable damage to boys... again at a very nice profit for the US medical profession...

I will continue to do what I do Pasa.. by keeping my wits about me and my head well and truly held up and my eyes open...

Hrm..that's funny. I don't feel irreparably damaged. You keep saying I'm damaged. I look down, I have a wonderfully functioning cock. I get much pleasure from it. I look around, and most of the cocks I see around me look just like it. It is your opinion that I am damaged. It is not one I happen to agree with. It is not, however, a fact by any stretch of the imagination.

The only people who think it's somehow a crime are on gay websites. Never, not even once, have I seen this discussion in the greater community. I've never been in a gym and had anyone comment about it. No offense, but the queer community isn't one that is known for level headed thinking on a great many issues. It's far more known for extremism and for being far less tolerant than they expect everyone else to be.

I've said, several times, that I'm against Female Circumcision. I am also for doing things that are effective. Is this the ideal solution? No. Is it the best we can do right now? Yes.

Right now, you are insisting that the only acceptable option is to completely eliminate this practice. This is not possible right now. Right now the practice goes on, unabated, but can be made at least a little better for these girls. Right now is what is important. And right now you get option A or option B. There is no option C for right now.

You can support this step and still push for option C hoping for the ideal later. I certain do.

Pasa

[Bluebiyou]

Another aside:
I study and have studied personal morality.
Pasa says I am sucking Fran's ass.
Fine, I'll accept that... but that's because she invariably right and a leader.
Nothing is 100.0000% in this world.
But I recognize that Fran is above me in most subjects of morality.
I pursue it, I study it, and Fran is almost invariably in front of me.
Reality sucks.
I'm second fiddle to a Scottish tart,whom I'll never meet or have sex with, in spite of my male ego.
...
and as a matter of f****** fact, I'm okay with that.
It amazes me you aren't intelligent enough to see it,
but you've demonstrated the intelligence.
You're (betraying your beliefs) you're too ego-bound to admit it.
That's the rub.
Texas must really suck, dude (the whole John Wayne ego thing), to demand you do this to yourself.
I'm sincerely sorry for you, on many levels.

[Pasadenacpl2]

Goll----lee!
Pasa can raise such a counter (albeit confusing) fuss!
On a side note, I loved Reagan. One of the best and most loved presidents since Ike. Although Bush Senior was unquestionably the most qualified, and should have gotten his second term (1993-1997). Bush Sr. would have solved some of the major problems we have today.
But the last I examined the Reagan/hostages issue, the evidence points very much in favor of a well orchestrated political maneuver(s). I could be wrong, sue me. I cried many times the day of the Gipper's funeral.

This is the only thing you've said, ever, that I remotely agree with. You're wrong about the hostage crisis, but other than that, we agree about The Gipper. Greatest president of the second half of our nation's history, bar none.

Pasa

[MarieDelta]

The only people who think it's somehow a crime are on gay websites. Never, not even once, have I seen this discussion in the greater community. I've never been in a gym and had anyone comment about it. No offense, but the queer community isn't one that is known for level headed thinking on a great many issues. It's far more known for extremism and for being far less tolerant than they expect everyone else to be.



I know several women who think circumscision / involuntary sex assignment is wrong for either gender. They arent most of them gay. So?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christiane-northrup/we-need-to-stop-circumcis_b_470689.html

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#!/pages/Woman-Uncensored/410740215421?ref=ts

http://www.circumstitions.com/

Now I would think that someone who believes in individuals rights wouldn't be for letting someone else determine what the most intimate parts of their bodies will look like.

[Pasadenacpl2]

Now I would think that someone who believes in individuals rights wouldn't be for letting someone else determine what the most intimate parts of their bodies will look like.

I don't feel that anyone violated my rights.

Pasa

[Pasadenacpl2]

Another aside:
I study and have studied personal morality.

Morality is not, and has never been, a constant. Morality is determined by one's culture. This is always the way it has always been.

I accept that your culture finds this male circumcision to be immoral no matter what the scenario is. My culture does not share your view. It probably will not share your view for a very long time. I'm comfortable with that as well.

Our cultures do agree that female circumcision is wrong. I support steps to eliminate it altogether (and I have given my reasons for this). This decision by the AAP is one step on that journey.

Pasa

[MarieDelta]

I don't feel that anyone violated my rights.

Pasa

Bully for you!

A person blind from birth doesnt know what it's like to see either...

[Pasadenacpl2]

And? Could we be more patronizing? Am I so stupid that I can't evaluate this? It's a very convenient setup when you discount any opinion but that of an uncut person.

Pasa

[MarieDelta]

And? Could we be more patronizing? Am I so stupid that I van't evaluate this? It's a very convenient setup when you discount any opinion but that of an uncut person.

Pasa



Not discounting your opinion.

Its your opinion that you would have had this procedusre done, regardless?

I just think its wrong to force someone to live in a way that isnt of their choosing.

As long as they arent actively hurting someone, to force someone to live someone else's choices is wrong.

It's one thing to care for someone, it's a whole other thing to change someone's body to suit your ideals of what is right.

But like I said, my opinion

You arent going to change your mind, I know this about you already.

so :/

whatever...

[Pasadenacpl2]

You're right. My opinion is likely to remain the same. I respect those who say they won't have their kids cut. To each his own, live and let live etc. I probably was more harsh in my reply to you than I needed to have been, Marie. My apologies.

Pasa

[kegspoon]

I agree,,,WHAT THE FUCK!!! Are we apppeasing people that still live in the 4th century,,,PC is bad enough this is hay-fucking-wire,,, again, are you fucking kiding me!!!! GOD DAMN THEM!!!

[Bluebiyou]

You're right. My opinion is likely to remain the same. I respect those who say they won't have their kids cut. To each his own, live and let live etc. I probably was more harsh in my reply to you than I needed to have been, Marie. My apologies.

Pasa

Yeah, dude, you're right... after I've calmed down, and re-reading yours/my responses, I've been pretty abrasive.
If I can win you over in debate, that's one thing, if I succumb and conform to the very 'drive-bys' I scorn... pffffft!

So, I invite your best, most astute commentary, and apologize for any inappropriate comments on my part.
Soon to come, my two part (that's how it looks at this point) thesis on the four points I mentioned.