Skip to content

AAP Reverses Policy on Genital ‘Nicking’; Danger of Moral Relativism Still Remains

June 4, 2010

My latest posty at David Horowitz’s NewsReal:

Last month, the American Academy of Pediatrics jumped right in as a contestant in the race to see who can be the most revolting, all in the name of multiculturalism and their misguided idea of tolerance. They released a policy update on Female Genital Mutilation, in which they first changed the term to Female Genital Cutting and, further, gave credence to the idea of allowing doctors to provide a “clitoral nick” instead.

Obviously, this didn’t sit well with sane people everywhere and, as such, the AAP was forced to retract that policy update and issue a new update. While I am thankful that they retracted the original vile update and it was clearly the right thing to do, the underlying reasons for the original update itself are highly troubling and can’t be swept away as easily as the policy was.

Firstly, the new update leaves the less offensive ‘cutting’ in place of ‘mutilation’. Guess who can’t handle the truth, as always? In the delusional minds of those on the left, particularly the elitist left, everything is semantics. Truth does not matter, as long as the Newspeak is deemed less offensive and allows them to pat themselves on their smug backs for being multicultural Citizens of the World ™.

Inoffensive, redefined words are more important to them than the actual offensive, and, frankly, evil acts themselves. Of course, evil isn’t a word that is allowed to be used either, which is exactly why the sickening idea of “just a little nick” entered their semblance of minds to begin with. It didn’t just happen here in America, either. The global left all have the same (alleged) thought processes; The Royal Australian New Zealand College of Obstetricians is considering ‘nicking’ as well.

RANZCOG secretary Gino Pecoraro said the policy would be discussed at next month’s Women’s Health Committee meeting.

We will need to start to think about [its introduction] but we would have to speak to community leaders from Australia,” Dr Pecoraro said.

“If a nick could meet the cultural needs of a particular woman, then it might save her from going through what can really be drastic surgery…”

The cultural needs? The need to mutilate a girl’s sexual organs? The need to commit a barbaric act? That right there is the danger that we all still face. The reason “nicking” was even discussed as an option, is due to the left’s embracing of moral relativism, in particularly meta-ethical relativism. An article at Salon, actually highlighted that and the extent of the danger that meta-ethical relativism, and the left’s own latent racist tendencies, brings.

As a nation of immigrants, we (in some ways like France, with its tensions over the burqa) continue to see tested the limits of liberties we hold dear; we continue to negotiate the tricky territory of embracing peoples while — in this case, rightly — rejecting their practices. And our doctors, evidently, are being asked to do exactly that in their own examining rooms. How can doctors address FGM in a way that makes sense to patients (why boys but not girls?) and educates without alienating, thus possibly helping protect that daughter from future harm? The above scenario with the Somali mother was a real one: It led to a comparable, and also rejected, “nicking” proposal in Seattle in 1996. So here we are again, revisiting the question at a national level, with doctors apparently still trying to figure out the most effective way to help protect the girls they encounter. What can we learn, this time around, about how to help them?

Yeah, no. There is no tricky territory to negotiate. Some things are black and white. Some things are right or wrong. Some things are good or evil. The elitist left, enshrined in their ivory towers, choose to be apologists for evil behavior so that they can tout themselves as culturally enlightened and Better Than You. They explain away all wrongs perpetrated by others by trying to rationalize irrational and insane behavior. Partly, due to their worshipping at the shrine of multiculturalism and partly due to their own bigoted beliefs.

Their constant talk of “brown people”, a phrase which they use that seems to encompass all but their own Ivory Tower dwelling selves, is another underlying factor. Not only do they truly believe that they are Smarter Than You and more enlightened than we hapless rubes, but they also truly believe that they are better than all those pesky “brown people”, particularly non-westerners. To them, of course non-ivory, non-westerners are far less advanced and can’t be expected to act in a civilized manner. Their barbarism is excused with a figurative pat on the head and a “bless their hearts.”

This attitude is not only bigoted, it is a great danger. It is the “soft bigotry of low expectations” taken to an unprecedented, and deadly level. The result of this line of thought is that not only are barbaric acts like FGM condoned, but terrorism is also not only tolerated, but excused. We see this all the time in their constant excuse-making for terrorists. Excuse me, man-made disaster causers, as the Newspeak-y left would like us to call them.

This bigotry and this meta-ethical relativism is one of the largest dangers the world faces. The world must realize that apologizing for evil, violent acts is not embracing diversity. It’s not “seeing both sides” nor being culturally aware. It is embracing insanity and condoning evil. Those who condone such barbarism and persist in delusional moral equivalency, like we are seeing now on a different scale with Israel and the flotilla, are actually complicit in it’s perpetuation.

It must end. Never Again, indeed.


(Originally posted at NewsReal)

Follow Lori  on Twitter and read more of her work at Snark and Boobs, iOwntheWorld , Right Wing News and Red State.

8 Comments leave one →
  1. Tennessee Budd permalink
    June 4, 2010 1:13 pm

    The radical Islamists always like to say that genital mutilation is one of their traditions, one of their customs. When they do, I’m always reminded of the words of General Charles James Napier, regarding the Indian custom of suttee (or sati), the practice of immolating widows on their husbands’ funeral pyres:

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

  2. June 4, 2010 7:27 pm

    Maybe we could start “nicking” some of these guys genitals and see how they like it. This is America and we should not be willing to accept the barbaric practices that some immigrants wish to bring with them. It does not show that we are “cool”, just barbaric like some of them .It is amazing to me that the “so called ” elite of this country with their Ivy League educations can so stupid and foolish.

  3. June 7, 2010 12:22 pm

    There are two issues I see here that are somewhat confused and conflated together.

    First is the comparisson between the fairly routine practice of “male circumcission” and the denigrated practice of “female circumcission.” The use of the same noun in both cases tends to disguise what I understand to be the very different end result as concerns functionality of the organ. If, however, the AAP were to define the latter solely as the removal of a portion of the hood, leaving the clitoris intact and functional, then I see little way that one may logically defend one but revile the other.

    Second is the wink-wink-nudge-nudge factor in the proposed approval of “clipping.” This seems to me an attempt to determine a clinically acceptable practice that may be used to asuage the desires of those seeking “female circumcission” without addressing the underlying social issues that create the perceived “need” for such nicking in the first place.

    I am of two minds. On the one hand I can share both your revulsion in a practice that, as most commonly applied, results in the permanent mutilation and impairment of innocent girls as well as your visceral rejection of what seems to be an attempt to find a way to medically accomodate this custom that is primarilly informed by a culture of misogyny and oppression. On the other hand, though, is the condemnation of such a culture really the proper action for a medical association? It seems, to me, more appropriate for the AAP to solely address the procedure. If “nicking” does not impede function of the clitoris I fail to see how it is fundamentally, in mechanical application, different than traditional male circumcission. Likewise, if the medical acceptance of such a practice leads more who are culturally seeking “female circumcission” to choose this procedure over more drastic, severe and damaging home-grown solutions, then it would medically seem to be a net gain for the little girls who otherwise would suffer greater.

    In no way do I approve of FGM or excuse it, nor can I imagine there to be any clinical need for “clipping,” but if the commpnly practiced procedure of circumcission is not considered MGM, I fail to see how a similar “nicking” would constitute FGM. The motive behind the action does not inform the physical result.

  4. skwerl permalink
    July 1, 2010 2:56 pm

    The removal of the hood impacts functionality in both the male and female. The hood (a.k.a., “foreskin”) is a protective sheath. It keeps things moist, is loaded with nerve endings, and protects the important tissue underneath.

    Removing the foreskin, in males AND females, reduces nerve endings and causes scarring and keratinization of the underlying tissues. This is why the glans of a circumcised male is dry like regular skin instead of moist and pink like gum tissue.

    In the case of a female, much sensitivity will be lost. In the case of a male, much sensitivity will be lost. How about we work towards allowing ALL of our children to keep their body parts intact and free from mutilation?


  1. Cassy Fiano » Amanda Marcotte and knee-jerk liberalism: We need more welfare because its for Teh Kidz!
  2. UN Staffers in Afghanistan Killed Due To Barbarism, Not A Burned Koran
  3. UN Staffers in Afghanistan Killed Due To Barbarism, Not A Burned Koran « Snark And Boobs

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: