- They have new language Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is now being called CUTTING (FGC).
They say this is to be more culturally sensitive, but they could recommend the terminology to Drs. for when they MIGHT have to deal with the situation without adopting it themselves and affecting everyone’s perspective.
- They state that some forms of FGC are less extensive than the newborn male circumcision done here in the West.
(True [???!!], but does that mean that we should stop MGC, since ALL forms of FGC are illegal? or, are they saying it’s really not that bad, since they condone MGC? We shall see…)
- They fail to mention in their description of motivations for FGC ANY belief of medical benefit.
(Is this to avoid recognition of the obvious similarity between attempted medical justification of FGC and MGC?)
- You have to read it to understand, but they practically make an argument in FAVOR of a ritual ‘nick’ (currently illegal) because it’s not as bad as male circumcision [???!!!], and mention that they think it’s ok for culture and parental desire to decide for male circumcision.
They even say that the integrity of our laws should be compromised to allow this.
(Where exactly are they trying to go here!? Are they going to completely ignore the fact that it’s painful AND unjustifiable!?)
If we are going to have EQUAL rights and integrity, one of two things MUST happen:
- Female genital alteration will become accepted, or
- Male genital alteration will become condemned.
The more obvious it becomes that there’s a hypocrisy to be dealt with, the more we’re going to see FGC sympathizers who, likely, are just MGC promoters trying to change our current non tolerance of FGC.
Take a look at the names people, and remember them.
NOW, write the AAP BEFORE THEY COME OUT WITH A FAVORABLE STATEMENT ON MGM!!!
Let them know how you feel about cutting the genitals of a non consenting PERSON regardless of their SEX.
Feel free to completely plagiarize my letter, or use it as an example:
Latin for “I will please”, the word placebo and the placebo effect means just that. Commonly used in research, a placebo is an inactive substance that would otherwise have no effect. However, because of the power of suggestion, when told that the placebo has an effect, the subjects receiving the placebo will believe and report that it does. This results in the placebo effect. Although placebos and the placebo effect are often spoken of in the context of medicine, occurrences of placebos and its effect have been commonly observed outside of medicine (Carroll).
“What it breaks down is the false left-right paradigm, the military industrial owned and therefore controlled mainstream media and the unholy alliance between the Federal Government and the private offshore banking cartel that is the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve is the crack dealing money machine to the Federal Government which has been an addict of fiat money since 1913 when Woodrow Wilson sold our country out to the Wall Street den of vipers and thieves.
This is the film that will finally get people to understand that there is a shadow government behind the puppet government.
It is run by the Rothschild-Rockefeller-British & Dutch Royal Family and assorted Bilderberg cohorts.
Some highlights of the 2 hour film are commentary by the extremely balanced and knowledgeable historian Webster G. Tarpley, who is the epitome of calm in a crisis as well as Gerald Celente, top future trends forecaster who long ago saw the onset of Depression 2009 like a dim light down a subway tunnel.
The best line in this movie goes to seminal hip-hopper Professor Griff of Public Enemy who asks:
“Where did we get this sense that just because we have a black man as President everything is going to be OK…everything is NOT going to be OK.”
Another great quote from Gerald Celente speaking of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner:
“He was the former President of the NY Federal Reserve and now he’s our Treasury Secretary?”
It is truly an absurd appointment - the former NY head of the banker to the government is now running the Treasury!?!”
“If you’re disillusioned with Obama, you don’t understand how he won.
The distance between the aspirations he raised and his record a year on is the distinction between the electoral and the political.
First, Obama was never a radical.
He won on a decidedly middle-of-the-road Democratic platform.
Beyond the Iraq war, which he opposed and she supported, there was little to chose between him and Hillary Clinton in terms of their programmes.
They had voted the same way in the Senate 90% of the time.
True, he represents a dramatic progressive shift in direction from the previous eight years.
But in almost any other western country his policies on the Middle East, gay marriage, trade and capital punishment would cast him out of polite leftwing company.”
Alan Grayson, Ron Paul, and Dylan Ratigan Discuss Auditing the Fed
“The bank lobbyists have the champagne out - the Brown-Kaufman amendment, which would have capped the size and leverage of our largest banks - was defeated in the Senate last night, 33-61.”
