Report: End 'demonization' of female genital mutilation
Doctors argue legalizing 'small surgical nick' is 'culturally sensitive'
Published: 10 hours ago
Female genital mutilation
As Western progressives jettison decades of progress against rape and sexism in favor of the Muslim-male “refugees” who have sexually terrorized females across Europe, women are being asked to accommodate one more barbaric Islamic practice targeting their bodies – female genital mutilation.
The practice, common across the Mideast and Africa, is outlawed in Europe, but a new report authored by gynecologists Drs. Kavita Shah Arora and Allan J. Jacobs, and published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, calls on the West to “adopt a more nuanced position that acknowledges a wide spectrum of procedures that alter female genitalia.”
Arora of the Department of Bioethics, Case Western Reserve University, and Jacobs, professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Associate Faculty in Bioethics, Stony Brook University, argue milder forms of female genital mutilation – FGM – should be classified alongside male circumcision, vaginal cosmetic surgery and breast implants to prevent it being “demonized.” Changing the way the procedure is defined and viewed can protect young women from more severe forms of cutting, they said.
In keeping with their compromise between Western and Shariah law, the authors propose changing the name of the Muslim practice from FGM to FGA – female genital alteration, reported the London Daily Mail.
In “Honor Diaries (Movie)” lets the women victims of female genital mutilation tell their own stories.
“We are not arguing that any procedure on the female genitalia is desirable,” they said. “Rather, we only argue that certain procedures ought to be tolerated by liberal societies.”
Changing the name, they said, reflects variations in the procedure and risks, while minimizing “demonization” of a widespread cultural and religious practice.
“In order to better protect female children from the serious and long-term harms of some types of non-therapeutic FGA, we must adopt a more nuanced position that acknowledges a wide spectrum of procedures that alter female genitalia,” they wrote.
“Acceptance of de minimis procedures that generally do not carry long-term medical risks is culturally sensitive, does not discriminate on the basis of gender and does not violate human rights. More morbid procedures should not be performed.”
At least 200 million women and girls in 30 countries now live with female genital mutilation, according to a new UNICEF report, CNN reported two weeks ago.
The report claims 70 million more victims than previously thought have been subjected to the “violent practice.”
The World Health Organization categorizes FGM as “a violation of the human rights of girls and women.”
“FGM has no health benefits, and it harms girls and women in many ways” by removing and damaging healthy and normal female genital tissue, and interfering with the natural functions of girls’ and women’s bodies.
Despite 30 years of campaigning against the practice by the U.N. and other NGOs, FGM continues in many countries and their immigrant communities that have resettled in the West.
Arora and Jacobs propose categorizing FGM or FGA into four types, with the latter the most invasive and highest risks.
Category 1 – Procedures without long-lasting effects on the genitalia’s appearance or function, such as a small “nick.”
Category 2 – Procedures resulting in slight changes of appearance but which are not believed to cause any lasting impairment to reproduction or sexual fulfillment.
Categories 3 and 4 – Procedures that harm or impair sexual fulfillment, pregnancy or childbirth, such as removal of the clitoris or vaginal cauterization. The latter should be banned.
Claiming that the first two categories are no different than male circumcision, they argue restricting minimal forms of FGM – or FGA – is “culturally insensitive and supremacist and discriminatory towards women.”
How can we defend America against Islamic supremacist encroachment? In “Stop the Islamization of America,” renowned activist Pamela Geller provides the answer, offering proven, practical guidance on how freedom lovers can stop jihadist initiatives in local communities.
Critics of the report noted that recategorizing FGM based on degrees of harm it causes does not, in itself, change how those who practice it do so.
Indeed, since the practice is opposed in the West, recategorizing FGM only serves as a way to give Western legislators a way to gradually accommodate it in their own countries so that it becomes “tolerated by liberal societies,” in the authors’ words.
Professor Ruth Macklin of Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, rejected Arora and Jacob’s report, saying there was no equating their first two categories with male circumcision.
“That may be true regarding the degree of harm the procedure causes, but it is not true of the origins or the continued symbolic meaning of FGA as a necessity for being an ‘acceptable woman,'” she said.
“There is no doubt that in whatever form, FGA has its origin and purpose in controlling women.”
Read more at
http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/report-end-demonization-of-female-genital-mutilation/#1KEfTtvV1DIkGUEk.99
