American Academy of Pediatrics backs female circumcision

Having know a good many African immigrants, I've seen how ingrained this mutilation is for them. If allowing a small nick will keep them from mutilating their daughters I'm all for it. Because they WILL find someone to do it. And many will die from it, and all will suffer horribly. If a pinprick appeases them, that's great.

Oh, I think so too. And education helps. But some places the education isn't available, and some people will never accept the education. And trust me, there are plenty of underground doctors in the U.S. who will do FGM, no shortage at all.

How do you feel about piercing babies' ears? If it's no more than a pinprick then I don't see a difference.

If it's less cutting than a male circumcision I don't see the difference. If you think circumcising a boy too young to give consent is OK (I don't), than what's the difference if a similar procedure is done to girls?

How do you feel about the "ritual nick" that men who are already circumcised receive when they convert to Judaism?

I do think "appease" is the correct term. The males in those families are usually the sorts who need to be appeased.

The full document makes interesting reading (note: anatomical illustrations): http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ds.2010-0187v1

I agree with Willowy - I attended a lecture years ago from an African man who spoke against female circumcision - if it is just a pinprick then it will be a whole lot better than actually cutting off the whole thing or sewing it shut.

The AAP are not actually advocating female circumcision, they are trying to avoid it by suggesting something that will only be one pinprick.

Its because this country wants to appease every other country - so who cares what another country does or says is legal - let's just accept anything they do. This is where we are heading and not standing up for moral values.

Kinda off topic but bugged us - last night on Bones show, they allowed one of the doctors on there (Muslim) to have his "prayer time" right out in the open. Yet you and I know that if a Christian would ask for allowed prayer time - it would be DENIED!

I don't agree with what they are suggesting either, but your title is misleading, I guess to grab our attention, rather like a sensationalist paper, as what is being proposed is INSTEAD of circumcision. But I don't agree with any of it. That's taking the Melting Pot too far, in my opinion.

Barbaric.

What the heck are you talking about? Maybe the hospitals are very different in your area (somehow I doubt this) but here practically every hospital is associated with some Christian denomination - the "values" and beliefs are very much part of how these hospitals are ran.

The show isn't about doctors in a hospital, but people who have doctorate degrees working in the Smithsonian Anthropology department.

But back to the topic...I would RATHER see these girls receive a tiny incision or pinprick, in a hospital, where anesthetic is used, than to see them sent overseas to be brutalized. However, just the fact that these YONG GIRLS have to go through the terror of someone inspecting those regions in order to do so would be horrifying for a child, IMO.

But honestly, the entire idea behind the practice disgusts me. Women are NOT property of their families or their husbands, and the majority of these girls are brutalized in Africa because they are treated as property.

This entire topic angers me, so much.

What about male circumcision? Any better because it comes from a Judeo/Christian background? I agree that that mutiliating a child (male or female) due to some sort of religious mandate is abhorrent (well, crazy superstition, really) - but it can take baby steps to wean people away from the more extreme beliefs - like circumcision. That's only gradually becoming less common in this country, isn't it?

Now, if you say we'll prosecute pediatricians and any other persons who practice this rite - and include circumcision in there as well - well, I could get on board with that. Sauce for the goose and all that.

BTW, on Bones I think we've seen they mark Christmas (with a whole paid day off and everything) - and, of course, under the law if some Christian sect had a well-known need to pray five times daily, they'd be allowed the time. As it is, this whole country tends to mark the Christian Sabbath far more than anyone else's holy day of the week.

Or are you saying Islamic prayers are somehow less 'holy' than Christian prayers? What do you think Jesus thinks about that - you do know that Jesus is revered as one of the great prophets in Islam, right?

Wow, I got to say - I agree 100% with you on this. Allowing a "nick" is very dangerous ground. Crazy!

Yes, Cindy. Male circumcision does just that. Do you know how a circumcision is performed? Do you know that it goes far beyond being a simple *nick*? There is ripping and crushing and cutting involved.

(You can read about/view a circumcision here, but I warn you, it is GRAPIC.)

It is a cosmetic procedure. The ONLY times circumcision is medically necessary is in the instance of trauma, frostbite, gangrene, or malignancy.

You can read about the functions of the foreskin here.

What I think is most important to remember is that this issue, whether you're talking about baby girls OR baby boys, is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue. The boys and girls who are circumcised are not able to give consent. Parents will insist that it's "their right as parents" to choose to circumcise their sons/daughters, when in actuality, the decision of whether remain intact or to be circumcised ought to be left to the owner of the foreskin.

Cindy-the tearing, ripping, and cutting is most certainly true. I don't know why you think it's not.

And I think it's pretty clear that there is no real purpose for this mutilation. The only *purpose* is to conform to societal and at times, religious norms.

You deliberately misunderstand. I am completely against all forms of non-consensual genital mutilation. If allowing a minor ritual would prevent the mutilation, I see nothing to object to.

The AAP paper I linked to explains why those cultures (it IS a cultural thing, NOT a "religious" thing, much like male circumcision in non-Jewish whites) believe female cutting is desirable. I doubt you've bothered to read it but it's in there if you want to see their reasoning.

There is no real purpose to FGM but there's no real purpose to male circumcision either.

I don't know what you mean by personal hygiene. I babysat for several uncircumcised young boys when I was a teen and they had no problems that were any different from circumcised boys. Hardly seems like a sufficient reason for that kind of procedure.

The vast majority of males in the world are not circumcised and I hardly think their personal hygiene is so horrible. Even most boys in the U.S. aren't done. Only in Jewish and Muslim countries are the majority of boys routinely circumcised.

Cindy-- You're mistaken.

At birth, the foreskin is attached to the glans beneath (literally). There is no extra cleaning involved; it's a self-cleaning mechanism. In fact, premature retraction of a boy foreskin (for cleaning purposes), can do real harm. The foreskin on intact boys proects the glans from feceses and (sitting in) urine while the baby is still in diapers. Circumcised boys have their raw glans exposed to their excrectments. That's pretty unhygenic, IMO.

Once the foreskin is retractable (some time around or after puberty), a man only need to retract the foreskin, rinse/clean the glans, and replace the foreskin. The smegma that can build up under the foreskin is found in copious quantities in the female genitailia as well. Simple washing takes care of it all, whether you're talking about males or females.

Circumcision is mutilation any way you look at it.

I agree with you- I think we need to do away with circumcision for men also!! It serves no purpose except to conform.
Honestly if I had a kid, a boy, I would have to seriously think whether it's better to do what's right and choose NOT to circumsize or save him some embarassment and just go ahead with it....

Anyway to the OP- I am completely disgusted at female genital mutilation of any kind....What I would have liked to see in the article is the exact definition of what this "nick" means..If it really is a prick with a needle that is no different than an ears piercing, I wouldn't think much of it if it saves girls from having their vagina sown shut or their entire clitoris removed (which by the way makes me soooo angry that it's an actually very real thing that goes on in some places)... After all, a lot of girls get piercings there anyway..

So, the fact that they DO go back to their countries to perform the procedure, makes you relieved that it's not happening on our soil and is no longer our problem???? Is that how you see it, because you keep going back to how "if they want to do it, they should go back to their countries" But you know it DOES happen, they do go there to perform it.

I personally don't care where it's happening, as long as it's happening I am worried about these girls and want to do whatever is necessary to help them....if it means passing a law to get away with a legal and not so invasive procedure I'm all for it, as long as the procedure is strictly defined and there is a guarantee that doctors cannot stray from the protocol.

The AAP point was that they want to avoid girls being sent to Africa to have the female circumcision being carried out - I don't think it has any bearing on accepting US laws/customs - if have a pin prick or a tiny wee nick under anesthesia avoids that, then I am all for it. The actual female circumcision involves the removal of the clitoris and/or sewing shut of the vagina - a far greater risk for infection, especially when the girl cannot menstruate properly, and the blood accumulates, causing serious infections, leading to death.

The article seems to indicate that families are sending the girls to Africa or to countries where it is regularly practiced. I would very much rather keep the girls in a safer country where the risks are far lower than they would be in those countries.

All countries have their customs that are traditional to their culture - just because one culture believes that is wrong doesn't mean they will stop doing it.

Case in point - male circumcision began as a cultural thing and its become a habit in some countries, one of them being the US because many people think it is more hygienic. But it is not more hygienic - as Jillian pointed out. It is actually removing a part of the penis and there have been effects that can cause damage to the penis. New Zealand does not routinely carry out male circumcisions because its not a necessity.

Seriously, NOBODY here is defending FGM. Of course your comment is on the mark; FGM is horrible, nobody denies that. The discussion YOU started was whether the AAP should have made the recommendation they did.

And if you're going to disagree with the AAP paper, you really should read it so you know what you're disagreeing with.
So you think it's OK for them to do if they do it in their own country? Because that's kind of the point here. The AAP wants to prevent these girls from being sent back to their countries to be mutilated by providing a safe alternative.
Most medical associations in the U.S. do not recommend it, but still it's culturally common.

The AMA "does not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns".

AAP: "In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child." The AAP recommends that if parents choose to circumcise, analgesia should be used to reduce pain associated with circumcision. It states that circumcision should only be performed on newborns who are stable and healthy."

AAFP: "recommends that physicians discuss the potential harms and benefits of circumcision with all parents or legal guardians considering this procedure for their newborn son."

And Medicare no longer covers the procedure in most states. Some insurance companies as well.


I really think the fastidious French men would object to being told that they're unhygienic.

In that^^ bit (culturally common) I was referring to male circumcision. Just so you know.

I don't see how anyone can say that male circumcision is "not even remotely comparable to female mutilation" but whatever. No point in arguing.

Hmm, Medicaid? Title 19? I don't know what it's called but whatever women on welfare receive to pay for their births.

It is frequently the mothers and grandmothers who insist on the procedure. They don't realize it can be any other way. And, yes in some cases the ritual is what they want and what's actually done doesn't matter to them. So I do think it could help in those cases.

What do you mean? I did do some more research, and if you're going to claim it started as a religious thing with Abraham it didn't. The Egyptians were doing it before then. They thought it was "manly". And originally it gained popularity in the U.S. because: "In the view of many practitioners at the time, circumcision was a method of treating and preventing masturbation" (Journal of Social History 28 (1): 5–36). Which sounds awfully similar to FGM.