Sunday, December 10, 2023
View Blog
May 12

Written by: Diana West
Wednesday, May 12, 2010 4:44 AM 

A: The American Academy of Pediatricians' statement on female genital mutilation (FGM). The AAP now, shockingly, advocates "the ritual nick" as a compromise position between that of Western civilization, which safeguards girls from such barbarism, and that of the Third World, largely but not exclusively Muslim, communities, that practice such barbarism on girls.

It's called losing out civilization, one nick at a time.

From the AAP statement (which, in calling female genital mutilation (FGM) female genital cutting (FGC) is already neutralizing the practice):

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.

When the door opens a little, it only tends to open more, not to slam shut.

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. Efforts should be made to use all available educational and counseling resources to dissuade parents from seeking a ritual genital procedure for their daughter. For circumstances in which an infant, child, or adolescent seems to be at risk of FGC, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that its members educate and counsel the family about the detrimental health effects of FGC. Parents should be reminded that performing FGC is illegal and constitutes child abuse in the United States.

But a little nick wouldn't hurt ...

Oh, for a General Napier to make the simple case that we just don't do that, that our culture doesn't permit such misogynous brutality. As Mark Steyn recounted in "America Alone," when Hindu leaders in India complained to Napier about the British ban on suttee, the Hindu custom on burning widows alive on their husbands' funeral pyres, Napier is said to have replied:

You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will folllow ours.

Gen. Sir Charles James Napier, 1782-1853

Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use
Copyright 2012 by Diana West