'RELIGIOUS' CLAIM BY DOCTOR ACCUSED OF FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION

[Michele]

No one saying something about circumcision would be obtuse enough to automatically assign it to Jews only. Since the majority of boys getting circumcised aren't Jewish.
FGM is however always done in then name of islam.
not even remotely close equivalents. No matter how much in love with your muslim students you are.

Ignore the chatter on circumcision. If you want to read up on the issue of FGM in the US, here are some places to start but Google is your friend on this subject with much more information:

Female genital mutilation

Underground in America: Female Genital Mutilation

AHA Foundation

[Hondo]

So I've got a question (that means I want to get some information, Philly).

They arrested the doctors for doing this, why haven't they charged the parents of the girls with anything? To my mind they are just as complicit in the whole thing as the doctors.

Or have they been charged and I just didn't read about it.

[phillygirl]

So I've got a question (that means I want to get some information, Philly).

They arrested the doctors for doing this, why haven't they charged the parents of the girls with anything? To my mind they are just as complicit in the whole thing as the doctors.

Or have they been charged and I just didn't read about it.

I don't know, but it's a good question and I believe the parents should be charged as well. I'd have to read the law and read more on this case. Like drugs, however, getting the doctor is going to the top of the chain.

[phillygirl]

I looked it up and the federal law requires the act of genital mutilation. It is possible, in my mind, to charge the parents with conspiracy.

[RobJohnson]

“While at the doctor’s office, a procedure ‘to get the germs out,’ ” was performed on the first girl, according to the criminal complaint. The girl was shown a photo of Nagarwala and said she was the doctor who performed the procedure, according to the FBI.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2017/04/13/doctor-charged-genital-mutilation/100416734/

How could a parent allow this to happen to their child?

[RobJohnson]

I hear the same about circumcision.

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

No comparison. On top of the fact that circumcision is still legal.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

[Celeste Chalfonte]

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...ion/100416734/


How could a parent allow this to happen to their child?

As of right now, there are 2 different stories. While I'm inclined to believe the prosecutors, no source has yet said they're doing clitoridectomies. If that's what was happening, they ought to hang this so-called doctor, except it's too good for her.

If she was, as her counsel has claimed, just taking a small piece of skin for ritual purposes, it's still child abuse in my opinion, but not any worse than circumcision. I seriously doubt this version, but until the case is proven, I'll reserve judgment.

Any unnecessary surgery on a child too young to consent, whether for cosmetic or religious reasons, is unacceptable to me. What Ginger has described so graphically is an abomination and has to stop. There is a continuum of bad conduct, however. I would not subject to criminal prosecution every doctor who does circumcision or every parent who has an infant's ears pierced. I would like to see the practice of surgically altering intersexed infants at or within 3 years of birth outlawed, but I wouldn't call doctors who did it or parents who consented felons, and in that case, entire organ systems are amputated for purely cosmetic/social reasons.

[Lady Marva]

As to the rest, note that a mohel doesn't need to be a physician.

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

Where are the vast majority of infant boys circumcised/
Why gollygilikers, in a HOSPITAL.

[Lady Marva]

Is there any reason a few if you insist upon talking about anything other than FGM in this thread? Why the diversions?

Ole dj there is a guy. He had to insert himself.

[Gingersnap]

If it was a "ritual" in which the girls were symbolically given a superficial wound to satisfy religious/cultural mandates, then no physician would have been required (and none are used in the few cultures where the "symbolic" act is common).

Permanently destroying a girl's ability to have an orgasm is not equivalent to removing a male foreskin. It just isn't - stop equating it. Many cultures have male circumcision and those boys and men have no trouble getting it on and getting it off.

They do not have constant UTIs, they do not have other infections related to retaining menstrual materials, they do not have equivalent scarring that not only destroys sexual interest but damages the normal biological functions of the tissues.

Most are not aware that female genital mutilation was becoming both rarer and less disabling until about 15 or 20 years ago. Many groups had given it up and those who still did it were moving to the symbolic cut version. Since then, more groups have revived it and the mutilation is increasingly severe.

Removing the clitoris, deep structures, and labia minora is not trivial. Removing all that and the labia majora is even worse. Attaching these wounds to each other to form unnatural scarring is torture.

Does anybody think that the average Muslim man (all of whom are circumcised) do anything like that to each other? Destroy their own sexual pleasure? Ensure that their sons have constant infections and dribble urine? Make their own sexual organs an object of horror to see?

No they don't. This is not equivalent. No.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

If it was a "ritual" in which the girls were symbolically given a superficial wound to satisfy religious/cultural mandates, then no physician would have been required (and none are used in the few cultures where the "symbolic" act is common).

Permanently destroying a girl's ability to have an orgasm is not equivalent to removing a male foreskin. It just isn't - stop equating it. Many cultures have male circumcision and those boys and men have no trouble getting it on and getting it off.

They do not have constant UTIs, they do not have other infections related to retaining menstrual materials, they do not have equivalent scarring that not only destroys sexual interest but damages the normal biological functions of the tissues.

Most are not aware that female genital mutilation was becoming both rarer and less disabling until about 15 or 20 years ago. Many groups had given it up and those who still did it were moving to the symbolic cut version. Since then, more groups have revived it and the mutilation is increasingly severe.

Removing the clitoris, deep structures, and labia minora is not trivial. Removing all that and the labia majora is even worse. Attaching these wounds to each other to form unnatural scarring is torture.

Does anybody think that the average Muslim man (all of whom are circumcised) do anything like that to each other? Destroy their own sexual pleasure? Ensure that their sons have constant infections and dribble urine? Make their own sexual organs an object of horror to see?

No they don't. This is not equivalent. No.

When you go on one of your rants, you don't even bother to read what anyone else actually wrote, do you?

[Frostbit]

A top New York Times editor decided the paper shouldn’t use the term “female genital mutilation” because the phrase is too “culturally loaded” and widens a divide between the Western world and “people who follow the rite.”

[Michele]

A top New York Times editor decided the paper shouldn’t use the term “female genital mutilation” because the phrase is too “culturally loaded” and widens a divide between the Western world and “people who follow the rite.”

I'm not surprised. Okay, I'm a little surprised that they started so soon with their warped rationalization. The push is obviously on to normalize it...I can already see this as the doctor's defense.

Here's another from the AP on ABC's website: Doctor's arrest brings attention to US female circumcisions

CBS also reported it on the Twitter feed: