AAP shifting FGM polocy - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 56 Old 04-30-2010, 03:25 PM - Thread Starter
 
ursaminor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 220
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I thought I would pass this on, a lot of Intactivists and FGM awareness people have been posting on facebook about the AAP's shifting language on FGM - now being referred to as FGC (female genital cutting) and more 'cultural sensitivity" in regards to parents wanted the procedure, and dissuading parents from seeking "harmful forms of FGC". Here is a link to the abstract and a comparison to the old statement, apparently not found on the AAP's site anymore...

http://www.circumstitions.com/AAP.html

ETA sorry for the typos I'm a bit of a dyslexic:P

Mama to DS 2/23/2009 and DD 7/22/2014
ursaminor is offline  
#2 of 56 Old 04-30-2010, 04:46 PM
 
titania8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: flint, mi
Posts: 1,368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Wow. That is seriously disturbing.

~helen~ mama to 5 yo twins jonas and micah and my 2 yo baby boy eli
titania8 is offline  
#3 of 56 Old 04-30-2010, 04:56 PM
 
laohaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So there are unharmful forms of genital cutting?

Homeschooling mama to 6 year old DD.

laohaire is offline  
#4 of 56 Old 04-30-2010, 06:19 PM
 
Fyrestorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 4,102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Wait...Wait...Wait....so the AAP is changing their position on a procedure that's illegal in the US anyway. Weird and scary

Victim of Birth Rape & Coerced ribboncesarean.gifUnnecesareanribboncesarean.gif What makes people think they can cut up someone else's genitals? nocirc.gif
Fyrestorm is offline  
#5 of 56 Old 04-30-2010, 06:37 PM
 
dachshundqueen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SoCal Dreaming
Posts: 2,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
In reading the actual policy statement that can be downloaded as PDF, I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions here.

What I am garnering from the policy statement is that pediatricians need to be more aware that there are strong cultural and religious reasons that some parents seek out FGM, and that as pediatricians they need to understand those reasons in order to best dissuade parents from either seeking to have the procedure done to their child or attempting to do it themselves.

What I do find disturbing is the language stating that a ritual nick performed by the pediatrician would build trust between hopsitals/doctors and the immigrant community and would be a good compromise. The softening of the AAP stance that this "milder" form of FGM is acceptable is mind boggling. How the AAP can in one paragraph state that this is acceptable and in the next state that parents need to be reminded that any form of FGM is illegal in the USA is beyond me.

"....pediatricians must always resist decisions that are likely to harm children." (1092, upper right hand corner) Which is ridiculous because the first part of that paragraph is about male circumcision - and that doesn't cause HARM??????

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ds.2010-0187v1

Liz

Wife, and mother to a small fairy, a demolition expert, a special new someone this fall and a small dachshund.
dachshundqueen is offline  
#6 of 56 Old 04-30-2010, 07:52 PM
 
Fellow Traveler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Formerly JWhispers
Posts: 2,042
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dachshundqueen View Post
In reading the actual policy statement that can be downloaded as PDF, I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions here.
I am not sure what part of the drawn conclusion you feel are wrong; they (the AAP) are softening their policy. Whereas before they stated that Physicians shouldn't under any circumstances perform this for any reason, they are now saying these mild forms might be considered as a substitute. That is a shift in policy.
Fellow Traveler is offline  
#7 of 56 Old 04-30-2010, 10:00 PM - Thread Starter
 
ursaminor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 220
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dachshundqueen View Post
What I do find disturbing is the language stating that a ritual nick performed by the pediatrician would build trust between hopsitals/doctors and the immigrant community and would be a good compromise. The softening of the AAP stance that this "milder" form of FGM is acceptable is mind boggling. How the AAP can in one paragraph state that this is acceptable and in the next state that parents need to be reminded that any form of FGM is illegal in the USA is beyond me.

"....pediatricians must always resist decisions that are likely to harm children." (1092, upper right hand corner) Which is ridiculous because the first part of that paragraph is about male circumcision - and that doesn't cause HARM??????

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ds.2010-0187v1

Liz
I have not read the entire publication...I'm trying to find a minute when I am in the best head space and DS isnt needing me. Are they truly saying it is okay for a ped to preform a "nick"? is the said nick, removal of the clitoral prepuce?...and isnt that, illegal? (-although I might add, peds still preform clitoroplasty on female intersex children and babies without fear of being prosecuted)
This is all very weird, and I think it is the AAP's way of dealing with the hypocrisy between their MGM and FGM stance. Very scary indeed, and only a few days away from the CDC's new statement

Mama to DS 2/23/2009 and DD 7/22/2014
ursaminor is offline  
#8 of 56 Old 04-30-2010, 10:07 PM
 
dachshundqueen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SoCal Dreaming
Posts: 2,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
You were speaking to:

Regarding being more culturally aware, if pediatricians actually take the time to learn the history (both cultural and religious) of FGM they can use that knowledge to actually hold a decent discussion with the parent on not doing FGM. IE. An intelligent pedi will try to find counterpoints to the main religious and cultural reasons for doing FGM, rather than saying, "Just don't do it, it's illegal." Moreso meeting the parent where they are.

Whereas:

The more important item in the article and shift in policy is regarding the actual suggestion by the AAP that the "nick" would be an acceptable compromise (even though the AAP acknowledges that this is still illegal currently and constitutes child abuse!!!).

Does that make sense?

Liz

Wife, and mother to a small fairy, a demolition expert, a special new someone this fall and a small dachshund.
dachshundqueen is offline  
#9 of 56 Old 05-01-2010, 05:03 AM
 
Claire and Boys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,407
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I never saw this coming. I really think it is an attempt to address the double standard that we have been pointing out for years. I think it has a LOT to do with the upcoming CDC statement and am quite nervous now about what that might contain in the light of this.
Claire and Boys is offline  
#10 of 56 Old 05-01-2010, 10:32 AM
 
Fyrestorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 4,102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire and Boys View Post
I never saw this coming. I really think it is an attempt to address the double standard that we have been pointing out for years. I think it has a LOT to do with the upcoming CDC statement and am quite nervous now about what that might contain in the light of this.
Me too...get Peds to think FGM is ok and what does that mean for MGM?

Victim of Birth Rape & Coerced ribboncesarean.gifUnnecesareanribboncesarean.gif What makes people think they can cut up someone else's genitals? nocirc.gif
Fyrestorm is offline  
#11 of 56 Old 05-01-2010, 11:20 AM
 
Galatea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 7,163
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire and Boys View Post
I never saw this coming. I really think it is an attempt to address the double standard that we have been pointing out for years. I think it has a LOT to do with the upcoming CDC statement and am quite nervous now about what that might contain in the light of this.
I agree. They are trying to appear less hypocritical.

But there is STILL no right way to do a wrong thing.

DS1 2004 ~ DS2 2005 ~ DD1 2008 ~ DS3 2010 ~ DD2 due Dec. 2014
On hospital bedrest for pPROM since 23 weeks
Galatea is online now  
#12 of 56 Old 05-01-2010, 11:48 AM
 
kittywitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Room of Requirement
Posts: 13,493
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by laohaire View Post
So there are unharmful forms of genital cutting?
Seriously!!!

This is so disturbing.

AP Mom to 5 knit.gifhomeschool.giftoddler.gif
 
  

kittywitty is offline  
#13 of 56 Old 05-01-2010, 02:17 PM
 
glongley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 1,072
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire and Boys View Post
I never saw this coming. I really think it is an attempt to address the double standard that we have been pointing out for years. I think it has a LOT to do with the upcoming CDC statement and am quite nervous now about what that might contain in the light of this.
My interpretation is that (despite the fact that Federal Law says even the slightest nick or pinprick to female genitals is illegal) they are trying to maintain the acceptability of what we currently do the baby boys, by making anything done to a female that seems no more serious than that be pronounced 'unharmful.' Therefore confirming that male circumcision is unharmful.

It is seriously mindboggling that of the two ways they could go to try to address the double standard in how we view female vs. male genital cutting, they choose the one that makes FGC more OK, rather than the one that makes MGC not OK. YIKES!

Gillian
glongley is offline  
#14 of 56 Old 05-01-2010, 04:35 PM
 
Claire and Boys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,407
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yep. The lengths that they will go to to push male infant circumcision. Now selling out infant girls as well.

I doubt very much that any other medical organisation worldwide would echo this. This IMO really puts a large dent in the AAP's credibility.

What I'm hoping is that FGM orgs will see this and finally people will start working together to end all nonconsensual genital cutting - regardless of what body part it is done on. For too long have people said "Hey, female circ is worse, so that means male circ is okay." This shows that we cannot be complacent about *either*. It's all essentially the same - children getting their body parts cut on with no medical justification and without their consent.
Claire and Boys is offline  
#15 of 56 Old 05-02-2010, 02:55 AM
 
KaylaBeanie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The South...for now
Posts: 612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I guess I'm just an unpassionate cynic. At least the AAP has grown some balls and leveled the playing field. MGC is "okay"? Well, now girls are viewed equally. Yay for equality At least they're consistent?

I honestly don't think it's worth the stress of getting worked up over. Regardless of strange AAP policy changes, FGC is still illegal and that isn't set to change. If a group of people push to make it legal, you can bet that every single feminist group in America will be up in arms. In fact, part of me hopes that happens. It will get a TON of media coverage, and it would be impossible to discuss the new policy without mention of MGC, and it would be a great opportunity for the higher up intactivists to speak at events, rallies and on tv shows. This is no different than if the AAP said that cultural tattooing of infants/minors might not be THAT bad. Doesn't matter what they think, the law is the law.

treehugger.gif NMY, uber-crunchy, college student, doula-in-training, health food store worker and future librarian read.gif
                                      

KaylaBeanie is offline  
#16 of 56 Old 05-02-2010, 10:28 PM
 
2boyzmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dayton, Oh WPAFB
Posts: 5,976
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Excuse me while I go throw up.

Mommy to BigBoy Ian (3-17-05) ; LittleBoy Connor (3-3-07) (DiGeorge/VCFS):; BabyBoy Gavin (10-3-09) x3 AngelBaby (1-7-06)
2boyzmama is offline  
#17 of 56 Old 05-03-2010, 12:58 AM
 
frontierpsych's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Where the other 4999 Bensoners are...
Posts: 6,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Echoing what everyone else has said. It is really sad. So many people inside and outside this organization are knee deep in denial about this issue, and will do anything to cover it up.

I'm a modifiedartist.gif DH is a reading.gif we have 2 angel.gifs, and DS is a rainbow1284.gif baby.gif
frontierpsych is offline  
#18 of 56 Old 05-03-2010, 01:12 AM
 
Rico'sAlice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern Berkshire County, MA
Posts: 3,167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaylaBeanie View Post
I This is no different than if the AAP said that cultural tattooing of infants/minors might not be THAT bad.
Is that illegal? Interesting. Aside from circumcision I'm also thinking of the comparison to infant ear piercing. I realize I'm getting off track, but I wonder if there are their laws restricting non-ear lobe piercing (nose, etc.) of infants/small children.
Rico'sAlice is offline  
#19 of 56 Old 05-03-2010, 01:49 AM
 
Pookietooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 5,059
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yikes! I understand wanting to be culturally sensitive, but what about bodily integrity? Isn't that a basic human right?

Jen 47 DS C 2/03  angel.gif04/29/08/ DD S 10/28/09 DH Bill '97.

mighty-mama and her sister Kundalini-Mamacandle.gif

Pookietooth is offline  
#20 of 56 Old 05-03-2010, 03:33 AM
 
KaylaBeanie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The South...for now
Posts: 612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico'sAlice View Post
Is that illegal? Interesting. Aside from circumcision I'm also thinking of the comparison to infant ear piercing. I realize I'm getting off track, but I wonder if there are their laws restricting non-ear lobe piercing (nose, etc.) of infants/small children.
Hmm, upon googling it would appear that tattooing/piercing is not explicitly illegal provided there is parental consent.

http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/H...3/Default.aspx

I happen to remember a few cases in the news where parents got in trouble for tattooing minor children, but I'm not sure if it was the tattoo itself that was illegal or the circumstances surrounding it. I do know that I have seen pre-teen Indian children here in the states with pierced noses though, so I can't imagine it's illegal. I'm big into piercings and tattoos, and I know that even if laws "allow" it with parental consent, every shop I've been to has a policy of no ear piercing before age 12, and then non-genital/nipple/tongue piercings allowed with parental consent at age 16. So it would appear to be a gray area. By these laws, it wouldn't be illegal if a parent consented for a child to be pierced or tattooed.

treehugger.gif NMY, uber-crunchy, college student, doula-in-training, health food store worker and future librarian read.gif
                                      

KaylaBeanie is offline  
#21 of 56 Old 05-03-2010, 08:34 AM
 
Claire and Boys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,407
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookietooth View Post
Yikes! I understand wanting to be culturally sensitive, but what about bodily integrity? Isn't that a basic human right?
obviously not in the USA
Claire and Boys is offline  
#22 of 56 Old 05-03-2010, 12:27 PM
 
Raine822's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The laws vary on tattoos and piercings. However, as stated before most good tattoo artists will have policies of their own. All three of my tattoo artists will not do anything if child is under 16. Also, they make sure even if 16 to question the decision as is permanent. None will agree to tattoo names ect for minors.
Raine822 is offline  
#23 of 56 Old 05-03-2010, 01:36 PM
 
K703's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raine822 View Post
The laws vary on tattoos and piercings. However, as stated before most good tattoo artists will have policies of their own. All three of my tattoo artists will not do anything if child is under 16. Also, they make sure even if 16 to question the decision as is permanent. None will agree to tattoo names ect for minors.
Then again ideally most good doctors would have policies against surgical procedures that are neither medically necessary nor done with the consent of the individual being operated on. We know how far that is from the truth.

Kelly, a man who is proud to be intact!
K703 is online now  
#24 of 56 Old 05-03-2010, 01:54 PM
 
2boyzmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dayton, Oh WPAFB
Posts: 5,976
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have been thinking about this since last night...I truly can not understand how they can outright say that it is illegal, then support a "ritual nick"? WTH is that anyway? Where/what do they "nick"? And at what age would that be done anyway?

Never mind, I don't care. I'm still just stuck on how this is legal. I understand cultural sensitivity. I understand the fear that these parents will go "underground" to do it and how that's much much worse. I understand the desire that if they feel like they can't stop it, then they can at least minimize it and make it "safe" (ugh, as if this is safe at all). I get it, I do, but it is still ILLEGAL. How can they publish something like this and not be commiting legal suicide??? How can they justify this?????

When discussing circumcision, there are at least the purported medical benefits (even though we all know they are false). But this is a case of doing something purely because it is cultural, with no (NONE!!) supposed medical benefits, contradictory or otherwise, and the AAP is okay with it?

My god what is this country coming to. Truly.

Mommy to BigBoy Ian (3-17-05) ; LittleBoy Connor (3-3-07) (DiGeorge/VCFS):; BabyBoy Gavin (10-3-09) x3 AngelBaby (1-7-06)
2boyzmama is offline  
#25 of 56 Old 05-03-2010, 02:21 PM
 
Raine822's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
k703, You just made me realize how sad it is that a tattoo artist would be more concerned about a non consenting minor than a medical doctor.
Raine822 is offline  
#26 of 56 Old 05-03-2010, 02:40 PM
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Healing my heart
Posts: 6,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2boyzmama View Post
I have been thinking about this since last night...I truly can not understand how they can outright say that it is illegal, then support a "ritual nick"? WTH is that anyway? Where/what do they "nick"? And at what age would that be done anyway?

Never mind, I don't care. I'm still just stuck on how this is legal. I understand cultural sensitivity. I understand the fear that these parents will go "underground" to do it and how that's much much worse. I understand the desire that if they feel like they can't stop it, then they can at least minimize it and make it "safe" (ugh, as if this is safe at all). I get it, I do, but it is still ILLEGAL. How can they publish something like this and not be commiting legal suicide??? How can they justify this?????

When discussing circumcision, there are at least the purported medical benefits (even though we all know they are false). But this is a case of doing something purely because it is cultural, with no (NONE!!) supposed medical benefits, contradictory or otherwise, and the AAP is okay with it?

My god what is this country coming to. Truly.
I agree with your every word.

Mama~Love is offline  
#27 of 56 Old 05-03-2010, 02:49 PM
 
hkowell1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South Central Va
Posts: 79
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ok, I might get blasted for this...however, "Cultural Sensitivity" is pretty lite language for something that is Cultural Norm. I don't know how many of the women here have worked with women from cutting cultures or even been to Lectures etc... We are not going to change how these women feel about their bodies or their womanhood/motherhood by telling them sorry you just can't do that anymore. This is ingrained into the very meaning of what it is to be a woman. Please don't get me wrong. Im not advocating for FGM.
Im sure none of us supports drug abuse/sex trades-however a good doctor/case manager is going to talk about safety-Many outreach worker hand out clean needles, condoms etc...the acts are illegal, but the over all goal is to keep people as safe as possible.

Its a slow process to rid the culture of negative rituals/behaviors etc...
and it begins with education
hkowell1 is offline  
#28 of 56 Old 05-03-2010, 03:05 PM
 
calebsmommy25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ithaca, NY
Posts: 1,040
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't even know what to say.

caffix.gifChristine: Mama to bouncy.gif  DS 04/17/08  *Infant Stroke Survivor*  Always remembering:  brokenheart.gifbrokenheart.gifbrokenheart.gif

 

Took a 'break' from TTC and look what happened:  2ndtri.gif!!!!    praying.gif  for a healthy, full term baby to be born August 2012!!  Hoping for a vbac.gif!

calebsmommy25 is offline  
#29 of 56 Old 05-03-2010, 04:02 PM
 
Rico'sAlice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern Berkshire County, MA
Posts: 3,167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2boyzmama View Post
When discussing circumcision, there are at least the purported medical benefits (even though we all know they are false). But this is a case of doing something purely because it is cultural, with no (NONE!!) supposed medical benefits, contradictory or otherwise, and the AAP is okay with it?
Actually, I think I recall that some of the HIV/male circumcision studies or some other survey also "demonstrated" a protective affect from female "circumcision". I'll see if I can find those links.

ETA:
This is not specifically what I was remembering, but for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting#HIV
Kanki et al. (1992) reported that, in Senegalese prostitutes, women who had undergone FGC had a significantly decreased risk of HIV-2 infection when compared to those who had not.[55]

Stallings et al. (2009) reported that, in Tanzanian women, the risk of HIV among women who had undergone FGC was roughly half that of women who had not; the association remained significant after adjusting for region, household wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer..[54]

Now there are also of plenty of studies showing the opposite conclusion, confounding factors, explanations, etc. But that's true for male as well. And of course some of the medical issues with male circ just haven't been studied with females. Like if there was a sizable population of circumcised females in western countries maybe a study could be done on protective measures from urinary tract infections or something.
Rico'sAlice is offline  
#30 of 56 Old 05-03-2010, 05:59 PM
 
fruitful womb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Fort Worth TX
Posts: 2,291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2boyzmama View Post

When discussing circumcision, there are at least the purported medical benefits (even though we all know they are false). But this is a case of doing something purely because it is cultural, with no (NONE!!) supposed medical benefits, contradictory or otherwise, and the AAP is okay with it?

My god what is this country coming to. Truly.
Give it time. Proponents for FGM will soon fabricate "studies" to show "medical benefits" that support their ritual. The path down this road started as soon as the AAP watered down FGM to FGC for "Cultural Sensitivity".

History repeats itself.
fruitful womb is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off