Diversity! Am. Asoc. of Pediatrians approve female genitial mutiliation

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Sir Elliot, May 15, 2010.

  1. Blades,

    Ahh, diversity! Where islamic barbarians get to mutiliate women, and we are all supposed to celebrate it. Stop complaining that YOUR morality says female genital mutilation is wrong. That's YOUR morality. They have THEIR morality. And THEIR morality says mutilating girls (or if you're Mohammad having sex with them at age 9) is just a-okay, just like flying planes into buildings if fine. Besides, it's OUR fault that they flew planes into buildings, just like it's the little girls faults that they have a clitoritis. IT MUST BE CUT OFF, IN THE NAME OF DIVERSITY.

    Wait, what the deuce you say? This is crazy, you say? Well, YOU ARENT RACIST, ARE YOU?????? You better shut your yap before we label you a racist. For the record, asserting that female genital mutilation is wrong is racist. RACIST. YOU RACIST.

    And so I submit, for your reading, this piece by that raging racist Mark Steyn (racist because he opposes FGM):

    Nicking Our Public Discourse - Mark Steyn - National Review Online

    Money quote:
  2. I'm not sure what conclusions you're trying to draw from the fact that the American Association of Pediatricians made a retarded decision that the vast majority of Americans would never support... Could you elaborate?

  3. How would this be any different then circumcision?

  4. Female circumcision means cutting off the clit. It is often accompanied by stiching closed the vagina as well.
  5. Just curious... Does 'female circumcision' ever entail solely the removal of the clitoral hood (i.e clit itself untouched, no other alterations)?

  6. I understand that, but that's not what I asked.

    I was referring to the part of the article that I quoted, which says the AAP is against female circumcision, but they are not opposed to a "ritual nick".

    I want to know how this "ritual nick" is any different then male circumcision?

  7. If not never, then almost never.

    The purpose is to prevent women from being able to experience sexual pleasure. It is a highly highly painful procedure.

    This is mandated under Sharia law, the full removal of the clitoritis. The hadiths are clear in this regard.

  8. The author is being sarcastic by placing the word 'ritual nick' in quotations.

    Slicing of a woman's clit off is a lot more than a 'ritual nick.'

  9. No... the author placed "ritual nick" in quotations because that is the exact wording in the statement issued by the American Association of Pediatricians.

    They are not advocating "slicing off a woman's clit".

    So AGAIN, SE... explain to me how this is any different then male circumcision in terms of mental and/or physical damage?

    There is also this:

    This is straight from the AAP website, not some biased, conservative blog. The AAP in no way, shape or form approves of "slicing off a woman's clit".

  10. That little lapse in reading comprehension may explain a lot
  11. Your argument falls flat. The practice of female circumcusion does not, by and large, involve a 'ritual nick' it involves the slicing off the clitortis.

    The AAP endorsing a 'ritual nick' is endorsing a procedure that is not in demand. Why would they endorse a procedure that is not in demand and that has no real physical or medical impact, when they previously opposed the practice? What is in demand is torturing women for being women.

    It's a phony cover for allowing FGM to take place here in the states.

  12. The AAP does NOT endorse any FGC that involves slicing off the clitoris, or anything more then a small pinprick as a compromise. It's clear as day in their statement, yet your sensationalist thread title suggests otherwise.

    SO AGAIN, Sir Elliot... answer my question. How is a ritual nick any different then male circumcision in terms of physical and/or emotional damage?

    It's a simple question.

  13. I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

    I don't believe the AAP. I believe they are being disingenous to provide cover for FGM.

    The practice worlwide is of slicing of the clit (and often stiching the vagina closed afterwards). The practice is not one of a small pinprick.

    Surely you don't believe that people are sending their children overseas to receive a mere 'pinprick.'?
  14. I don't think you understand what you are talking about.

    FGC involves many different practices depending on the culture, ranging from a simple prick to fully removing the clitoris.

    Your claim that the AAP "approves of female genitial [sic] mutiliation [sic]" is completely baseless.

  15. I find it astonishing the lengths you are willing to go to defend the genital mutilation of women.

    It's true what they say. A liberal is a person who won't take their own side in an argument.
  16. #16 Penelope420, May 16, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 16, 2010
    I did not once defend genital mutilation, of women OR men.

    I asked you a simple question, which you repeatedly dodged (and are still dodging).

    I also posted the official stance of the AAP, which completely contradicts your baseless claims.

    Don't try to distract from your original post. If the AAP approves of female "genitial mutiliation" [sic] as you claim, where have they made that their official stance?

    Saying that you don't believe them amounts to absolutely nothing.

  17. Well he's got to think about it

    When Muslims do it, they're barbarians. But when white people do it......it must have something to do with the new health care plan. Damn you, Obama!
  18. Ok, now I KNOW you have absolutley no idea what your talking about.

Share This Page