♀☹☠☣☢★☆
☆★☢☣☠☹♂
Posted on 05/12/2010 6:32:25 PM PDT by Maggie Maggie Maggie
What is the American Academy of Pediatrics thinking? Why would this esteemed medical organization backtrack on a firm policy against female circumcision? Now the American Academy of Pediatrics has announced that it will permit a modified symbol of female circumcision that allows doctors to nick or prick the clitoris of young girls so that families do not get a full female circumcision done. Why? Why subject young girls to anything that traumatizes them and associates their genital region with a ceremony that causes them physical pain and emotional distress? And why even honor the concept of female circumcision with a symbol to let girls know their sexuality is tainted? Female Circumcision is Illegal in America Those families that insist on genital mutilation, which is currently illegal in the United States, will do whatever it takes to get it done. Why encourage them to think about the notion by allowing even a nicking of genitals to take place? The New York Times reports that "Dr. Friedman Ross stated that the committee "opposes all types of female genital cutting that impose risks or physical or psychological harm. The nick is supposed to be as benign as getting a girl's ears pierced. It's taking a pin and creating a drop of blood." That statement is ridiculous. There is nothing "benign" about any cutting, pricking, or nicking of the female clitoris. Doctors in America should not be appeasing old school families that denigrate female sexuality and want a symbol of female circumcision done on their daughter's body. Any Ritual Cutting of Female Genitals is Misogynist The American Academy of Pediatrics is taking political correctness too far in trying to appease the cultural sensitivities of families from places like Africa and the Middle East.
(Excerpt) Read more at associatedcontent.com ...
Destroying Western Culture in the name of diversity.
Why not just prosecute them, take their children from them, forbid those who accept it as immigrants?
But them I'm not running things.
Either drag them out of the twelfth century or bury them in the twentyfirst.
Male circumcision has proven medical benefits. There is absolutely no medical reason for female circumcision, aka genital mutilation.
Yep... or better yet...
“You make my little girl scream, I’ll make you scream like a little girl.”
Oh I agree.
This, to me, is a matter of religious liberty. If we base our view that female circumcision should be prohibited because it is cruel, how then do you defend the practice of male circumcision? There are many ritual customs within a particular religion that seem cruel or bizarre to those outside that religious system. Is there an universal principle that can be created to determine what religious practices are permitted or not? Who decides those principles? I do not support female “nicks” or circumcision, and I am horrified by the practice; however, I have to look at it from a more legal or philosophical reference.
What about those who've already been castrated?
Could be a requirement for Sharia loans.
The Muslims are going to take us over by the pocketbook. Shortly after the electronic run on the bank that resulted in TARP, the fed economic people (can’t remember if it was Paulson, Bernanke, or who) started having conferences on Sharia loans.
The leftists are in on this because Muslims and leftists both oppose Christ. They are anti-Christian. Strange bedfellows indeed, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend - same reason Shiite and Sunni terrorists work with each other to defeat the “Great Satan” (America).
I know some would consider this crazy, but a person has only to look around them to see it.
George Soros has said he is God and that he bought and owns the democratic party. He has said that communism is the solution to the world’s problems. AND he has said he’s afraid that America will win the war on terror because that lead to a strong America, and America is the cause of everythng bad in the world.
So it seems to me that Soros is a prime suspect to join with Islam in order to bring America down. The beast out of the land and the beast out of the sea; the one thing they have in common is a hatred for Christ and the freedom He brings. Could explain why Obama’s people ignore warnings about potential Islamic terrorists.
What about burkas?
I say we endorse burkas with bigger eye holes and maybe some ear and mouth holes too. And wife beatings with rulers./s
Everything you say is true, particularly that the Muslims are going to take us over by the pocketbook. If they’re smart, they’ll stop the terrorist attacks and simply focus on getting us to accept their demands because they have the money and we don’t.
Sharia finance is being imposed very rapidly here, and I suspect that it’s one of Barry’s big goals, although of course he has to go about it indirectly. First he collapses our industries and systems, then he “welcomes” sharia compliant finance as a solution.
Also, both Islam and communism are very collectivist in their thinking. Islam has a hopeless, miserable world outlook where the average person is just a cog in the non-functioning wheel of his society, or, perhaps, the wheel that functions just enough to make sure that the wealthy politician/clergy class does just fine while everybody else lives in squalor. But they live there collectively, and individual Muslim lives are of no importance.
That’s what Communism and Islam have in common. Christianity, on the other hand, sees the individual as the essential and all-important figure: the individual who hears the call and makes the decision to change his life and follow Christ. By contrast, the individual is the greatest threat to Islam and Communism that exists.
Their choice - for now...
Nonsense.
All circumcision is unnecessary, barbaric, primitive, and superstitious.
Sweden has a near-zero rate of circumcision, and their STD rate status is probably better than most nations where circumcision is rampant.
The earlier studies ignored cultural dimensions of the subject population in the African country: Muslims, who have a near-100% rate of circumcision, are less likely to indulge in promiscuous extramarital sex with multiple partners than the others.
She Cries you die!
Ping - more craziness.
Nonsense to your nonsense!
There are numerous studies proving the medical benefits of male circumcision. Are those benefits significant enough to justify circumcision? That’s up to parents to decide, hopefully with the advice of their doctors.
I’m not “barbaric” or “primitive” because I think male circumcision is OK.
The “nick” is ritual, to satisfy Muslims.
But what they are doing is endorsing the enslavement and mutilation of women in a philosophical way.
Psychopaths, all of them. Psychopaths.
Male circumcision has some health benefits and is probably not necessary in our culture but does have a religious significance.
It is sort of debateable whether it is comparable to female mutilation which has no medical basis or biblical basis and is harmful to women.
Ritual genital mutilation, both male and female, is both abnormal and barbaric, however you want to put it.
There are about as many studies refuting those pro-mutilation “studies” as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
