General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMichigan doctor says female genital surgery was a 'religious practice' -- not mutilation
Tresa Baldas
Detroit Free Press
DETROIT In a stunning revelation in federal court Monday, an attorney for a Detroit-area doctor charged with mutilating the genitals of young girls admitted that her client performed a procedure on the juveniles' private parts, but maintained that it wasn't cutting.
Instead, the lawyer said Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, 44, of Northville, removed the membrane from the girls' genitals as part of a religious practice that is tied to an international Indian Muslim group that the doctor belongs to.
Attorney Shannon Smith said that her client removed the membrane from the girls' vaginal parts and gave it to the girls' parents, who would then bury it following a custom practiced by a small sect of Indian Muslims known as the Dawoodi Bohra.
All of this was disclosed at a detention hearing for Nagarwala, who was ordered locked up pending the outcome of her case. The judge concluded she was a danger to the community and a flight risk after hearing arguments from both sides.
The government argued that Nagarwala engaged in secretive practice that has potentially harmed numerous young girls across Michigan. And she did it after hours, in a private, unnamed clinic in Livonia, without keeping any records or billing anyone, the government said.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/michigan-doctor-says-female-genital-surgery-was-a-religious-practice-not-mutilation/
ExciteBike66
(2,374 posts)"The Membrane"?
I don't remember anything of that name from my sex ed classes.
RedWedge
(618 posts)Wounded Bear
(58,706 posts)Sweeten it up all they like, it is still mutilation. It's barbaric and it is horribly misogynistic to alter a woman's physique to satisfy some male standard. To think an actual Medical Doctor would countenance it is disgusting.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)God would prefer it if your body would stop at your neck. You would be much more compliant.
HAB911
(8,912 posts)mercuryblues
(14,537 posts)She should know only Christian religious beliefs get special consideration.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)that children should be mutilated so they can never enjoy sex? Do tell.
mercuryblues
(14,537 posts)There are Christians who believe that women and LBGT should not be able to do a lot of things. They have even made laws to force this belief onto others. Some laws have failed, but give them time. I never would have believed that laws could be enacted allowing a Doctor to lie to a pregnant woman about her medical condition, but here we are in the 21st century. 11 states have a law on the books to allow a DR to lie to a pregnant woman about fetal anomalies and her health if they believe she might have an abortion. Retail stores can deny woman prescription coverage for Birth Control, based on religious beliefs.
More than once legislators have tried to push laws through that a woman has to have a man's permission for an abortion.
NC republicans are trying to make same sex marriage illegal, based on religious beliefs. They have already have a law stating what bathroom a person can use. Because of their religious beliefs.
While several states have or tried to have laws that make Sharia law illegal.
50 Shades Of Blue
(10,043 posts)whathehell
(29,090 posts)that ends in transparently false equivalence.
mercuryblues
(14,537 posts)I had to endure a very painful, unnecessary medical procedure because I had a pregnancy go wrong and needed an abortion. Not to mention the 48 hour wait. All because some Christians think that a zygote is more important than my life and elect people that will enact laws to appease their religious beliefs. Not to mention having to wait 48 hours and hope that I didn't start hemorrhaging or develop sepsis. That is the real torture. I have a relative that went through the same thing. The difference was her husband was military, so the Hyde amendment kicked in and she had to wait 2 weeks for government approval for an abortion.
whathehell
(29,090 posts)in the interests of having your sexuality destroyed for your entire life. That is the "real" torture.
50 Shades Of Blue
(10,043 posts)allow you to have an abortion.
whathehell
(29,090 posts)to deprive them of natural sexual pleasure for the rest of their lives, but feel free to keep trying..
50 Shades Of Blue
(10,043 posts)deaths in lieu of terminating a pregnancy (even a pregnancy with a nonviable fetus) before it kills them (per Catholic Church teaching) would agree.
whathehell
(29,090 posts)to disobey the teaching -- A seven year old is not.
50 Shades Of Blue
(10,043 posts)Oh and by the way, it's regardless of age and ability to disobey. A ten-year-old rape victim impregnated by her rapist, and who is too small to survive childbirth, whose parents follow Catholic teaching, will also be allowed to die rather than have a life-saving abortion.
Non-Catholic women whose only hospital option is a Catholic hospital will also be allowed to die.
whathehell
(29,090 posts)There's no "express ticket to hell", in that surviving gives one the chance to 'repent' should one feel the
need.
Your need to reach for extreme hypothetical scenarios to counter something that's real and happening every day
strongly suggests that your 'equivalence' argument is a failed one.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)And EVERY SINGLE TIME someone here posts something that trashes some form of Christianity, especially involving women, is going to make me post something about Islam. Some people here want false equivalence, that's exactly what they're going to get. I'm tired of this board proving Bill Maher right.
whathehell
(29,090 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Still, it's not the topic of this thread.
50 Shades Of Blue
(10,043 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But the point here is that a doctor was doing some seriously fucked up shit to baby girls in the name of religion, and hopefully she will be sent to prison for a long, long time.
Or were you talking about the moon bombing?
50 Shades Of Blue
(10,043 posts)The woman abuse of the Catholic Church doesn't get a pass just because another religious belief system is being discussed. That system is barbaric, and it's right to point it out, and the fact that it shares the exact same anti-female dynamic means that there is never a time that isn't right to expose how barbaric the Catholic Church also is to women. The whole reason the Catholic Church forbids abortion is precisely to punish women for experiencing sexual pleasure without risking their lives in childbirth.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)except your justification for hijacking the thread.
50 Shades Of Blue
(10,043 posts)I will try to remember my place from now on.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)You can do whatever you want. So can I. That's how this works.
50 Shades Of Blue
(10,043 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)mercuryblues
(14,537 posts)So stop trying to say I did. I said the DR needs to realize that only Christians get special consideration under the law.
Genital mutilation is horrid, so is what I went through. Why does it have to be either/or? Or one has to be worse than the other to be considered inhumane? Both are.
According to you the days I had to wait fearing complications that could kill me or make me infertile wasn't real torture. Nor was the mandated vaginal ultra sound that hurt so much I screamed and they had to hold me down. All mandated by law. IOW I was forced, by law, to endure physical pain and trauma. Laws that some very vocal Christians pushed for to shame women.
whathehell
(29,090 posts)but you're inferring it by deflecting from the hideous Islamic practice of FGM to talk about supposed "special" rights granted Christians
.If you want that to be the main subject, you need to start your own thread, instead of trying to hijack this one.
whathehell
(29,090 posts)Just a thought.
mercuryblues
(14,537 posts)beliefs will kill pregnant women.
whathehell
(29,090 posts)but it's still a bad analogy. Sorry.
.
.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...because it is an African practice which pre-dates Christianity and Islam.
While this fact is inconvenient to various agendas, it is not exclusive to any one religious group, nor is it broadly practiced by any one religion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation_by_country
Burkina Faso
The prevalence varies with religion in Burkina Faso; FGM is prevalent in 82% of Muslim women, 73% of traditional religions, 69% of Roman Catholics and 65% of Protestants.
Eritrea
A 2002 survey reported by Unicef shows FGM prevalence among 99% of Muslim, 89% of Catholic and 85% of Protestant women aged 15-49 years
Kenya
By religion, it is more prevalent in Muslim women (51.1%) and women listing no religion (32.9%) and less prevalent in Roman Catholic (21.5%) and Protestant or other Christian women (17.9%).
whathehell
(29,090 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 19, 2017, 01:04 AM - Edit history (1)
and even tthere, it's most prevalent among Muslims, in some cases, far more prrevalent.
This Muslim mutilated a child in America, and is trying to justify it as a "religious practice". To say that she and those like her have
assimilation problems would be an extreme understatement.
Initech
(100,102 posts)Fuck these monsters and their "religion".
TBA
(825 posts)whathehell
(29,090 posts)Female genital mutilation removes sexual pleasure for females -- So they can be simple objects and repositories for males....It's aggressively,, obscenely dehumanizing.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)False equivalencies out the yin-yang today...
If folks are that anxious to dredge up the old circumcision debate, let them start a new discussion...
whathehell
(29,090 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 18, 2017, 09:14 PM - Edit history (1)
and it's quite predictable.
safeinOhio
(32,715 posts)My new excuse for farting on an elavator.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Calculating
(2,957 posts)Because it supposedly 'looks better' or something.
pennylane100
(3,425 posts)I was under the impression that the uncircumcised penis is more prone to infections. I could be wrong, however.
Calculating
(2,957 posts)Assume that the male follows proper hygiene and washes under the foreskin it's not likely to be an issue.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)where proper hygiene is not always possible.
Christianity is neutral on circumcision. The Council of Jerusalem 2,000 years ago said it wasn't necessary.
Baconator
(1,459 posts)... in unhygienic circumstances.
In the western world, it's all moot and purely for aesthetic and cultural/religious reasons.
csziggy
(34,137 posts)March 31, 2017 7:07am
(JTA) The New York City Health Department said it will ban ritual circumcisers automatically if the infant they treated orally develops a herpes infection.
The ban would affect those who perform the ritual known as metzitzah bpeh, in which the person performing the circumcision, known as a mohel, sucks blood from the wound following circumcision. It is a common practice among many haredi Orthodox Jews. When performed directly with the mouth as opposed to through a sterile pipette, it has been linked directly to the transmission of the herpes virus.
Under the new regulation, every time there is a mohel who performed metzitzah bpeh on an infant who has contracted HSV-1, the Health Department will serve them with Commissioners orders banning them from performing the ritual, The Jewish Week of New York reported Thursday, quoting city officials. HSV-1 is a type of herpes.
The Health Department will now ban the mohels linked to cases of herpes in newborns without testing for the virus, the newspaper reported. Prior to the regulation, the ban would be issued only pending tests both of the mohel and the baby.
http://www.jta.org/2017/03/31/news-opinion/united-states/nyc-to-automatically-ban-mohels-if-children-they-treated-orally-get-herpes
Response to csziggy (Reply #32)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Personally I take issue with surgically modifying the body of someone - like a baby - without their consent for any reason not supported by direct medical necessity (and no, male circumcision is not) ... however, there are major differences btw. male circumcision and female "circumcision".
Yes, have that debate, but not in the context of this one. Just my 2 cents.
whathehell
(29,090 posts)since FGM, destroys sexual feeling in it's victims, and male circumcision does not -- Big difference.
radius777
(3,635 posts)female circumcision is worse, as it is essentially amputation (im not sure this particular case is that though) with the intent to restrict sexual pleasure, and rooted in the oppression of women.
but make no mistake about it, there are many men who suffer lifelong sexual impairment/dysfunction due to circumcision.
bottom line, it should be a serious crime to perform unneccessary and potentially harmful surgery on a child, period.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I put male circumcision in the category of things that I have an opinion on as far as how I personally would handle them but am not prepared to legislate as far as what other people do.
But again, this isn't the thread for that debate anyway.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)RandySF
(59,221 posts)Wrong analogy.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Throw the book at her. Next.
elleng
(131,105 posts)religious practice = mutilation
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)whathehell
(29,090 posts)Attempts to deflect responsibility for this barbaric practice by condemning "religion" generally, is both transparent and lame.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)I condemned the all too common practice of cruelty in the name of religion.
Not all religious people are guilty of cruelty, and not all cruelty is done in the name of religion. But there is a significant subset of cruel acts that have been committed with "god's blessing" or in response to "god's command".
I don't recall ever hearing of cruelty in the name of the Buddha, or cruelty in the name of the Quaker religion. But then there's the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, assorted Jihads and religious wars, as well as pretty much the whole history of Ireland, and of the Middle East.
Or, by "deflect" do you mean my refusal to blame only Islam for barbaric acts?
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)If and when they gain power.
Name a religion that has not been cruel and I will name one that has never had any power in society. And I would bet that there are lots of Quaker kids who felt marginalized in their own families if they chose not to follow the family religion.
I am by no means a Marxist and believe that tightly regulated capitalism is the key to prosperity but Marx nailed the whole religions thing. Of course, he was not the first going back thousands of years.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)Warpy
(111,339 posts)but it's nowhere in that book. It's a vicious tribal practice that predated Islam, perpetuated by men who want women to be property and grandmothers who know their granddaughters will have to marry them to survive.
RandySF
(59,221 posts)Not everything in the name of religion is protected. Parents have lost custody of kids because they refused to take them to the doctor. Cult leaders have been thrown in jail for molesting young girls in their cults.
Greybnk48
(10,176 posts)In the name of religion.
rug
(82,333 posts)oasis
(49,407 posts)RandySF
(59,221 posts)It's mutilation. It's illegal. Throw her in jail.
MFM008
(19,818 posts)And their medieval bullshit.
Ilsa
(61,698 posts)The bills enable criminal acts.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)but people still wouldn't be allowed to religiously put a "forbidden" chemical in their own bodies without risking going to prison.
Blue_Roses
(12,894 posts)a doctor--especially a gynecological specialist--is someone that women have to put all their trust in, while hoping to have a favorable outcome. Just getting in those stirrups alone is frightening for young girls ( hell, sometimes we older women too)
This is disgusting, especially knowing it happened in the US. I had heard of this horrendous procedure being done in 3rd world countries, but never here.
Very sad...