Push to let Australian doctors mutilate genitals of baby girls

Push to let Australian doctors mutilate genitals of baby girls

AUSTRALIAN doctors are considering a controversial form of genital mutilation on baby girls.

The practice involving cutting a girl’s genitals, sometimes with razors or pieces of glass, could be allowed in a clinical setting to stem illegal backyard procedures which are leaving young girls scarred for life.

The Royal Australian New Zealand College of Obstetricians will next month discuss backing “ritual nicks”, a modified form of genital mutilation.

Wasn’t this the same argument put forward to legalize abortion? Now they want to legalize child abuse.

At any rate, all the comments are quite rightly appalled at the suggestion. Don’t make it legal - arrest those who perform it, arrest the parents who require it to be done and remove the children to safety.

Is this being done for a religious purpose by a certain group of people? If so, I’m not sure it can be viewed any differently than having a baby boy circumcised. And, I’d certainly rather have this done in a clinical setting.

I suggest looking up what is actually done to girls. Images are available, but be warned, it goes far beyond the cutting of foreskin. It is abuse, with the sole purpose of depriving a girl of any future sexual pleasure.

Its actually quite a bit different. Although it is sometimes called female circumcision, what it does is remove the clitoris, effectively depriving the girl, to be a woman, of sexual pleasure. This is not at all like removing the foreskin of a penis.

Female Circumcision/ Female Genital Mutilation is a cultural practice, more so than a religious practice. If we believe in absolute morality, of a right and wrong which transcends culture, I think this practice is something to be opposed.

We are told is that it is a cultural issue rather than a religious one. Most of the little girls suffering from this are from Africa.

One is reminded of General Napier’s recognition of the right of religious performance of ‘sati’ (widow burning):

“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.”

A procedure of this severity does not appear to be what the Royal College is investigating.

Backers of “ritual nick” said it was a superficial procedure leaving no long-term damage…

"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.

If the doctors can establish a procedure which is culturally acceptable, and doesn’t actually remove the clitoris, this would be a very good thing.

The world can be such a sad place. “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.”

This is in no way ‘religious’ since no religion requires it. It is, in fact, cultural and crosses religion lines in specific countries.

The idea that mutilations are better if performed by a doctor is abhorrent.

Long prison sentences for anyone who does this in their backyard should where the conversation starts and ends. The expertise of a doctor is not needed. It is a matter for judges and wardens.
The whole point of moving to Australia ought ot have been to get away from this kind of barbarism.

Yet that same idea is the prevailing view with regard to male circumcisions.

It is removal of the girl’s clitoris which is sexual mutilation not"female circumcision"as it is so euphemistically put.It removes any pleasure in sexual intercourse "ensuring"wifely fidelity and the virginity of daughters.It is an ABOMINABLE crime against women and should be punished by prolongued incarceration.This practise should not be tolerated ANYWHERE especially within western civilization.

Dale, we often disagree, but this time I completely agree. There is no good in mutilating a woman to prevent her enjoyment of sexual contact. There is also no choice given to the woman in question.

I also agree that there are absolute standards of right and wrong that transcend cultural practices, and that this practice fails to meet this standard.

(Also kudos for your support of Mystic Monk coffee!)

Also an excellent point. While the end/goal may be laudable, fidelity, the means is NOT. This is another case in which the end does not justify the means. True fidelity is partially great, because it is an act of SELF-restraint, and thus an act of submission to God, not submission to the abusive will of another. :thumbsup:


This is all fine and good, but doesn’t really address the issue in the article: the Royal College is considering a proposal to allow “ritual nicks”. The American Academy of Pediatrics recently discussed the same sort of thing, described in this article:

The group now wants to explore allowing American doctors to perform a ceremonial pinprick, or small nick, on young girls if it would keep their families from pursuing circumcision.

Do you think that people who are so barbaric would go for a “ritual nick”.?It’s purpose is to remove all sexual response in societies that are terrified of female sexuality,and view women as chattel.

This should in NO WAY be encouraged by some misguided medical solution which is the thin edge of the wedge.Any parties involved in this must be SEVERELY punished to discourage it’s spread in civilized nations.Severe punishment they WILL understand.If this can be attributed to specific cultures then that should to come into play when approving someone for immigration.

This is what government endorsed muti-culturalism instead of melting-pot integration gets you-barbaric,medieval mutilation of helpless little girls-similar to the practise of mutilating young boys-castratos-so that their voices would never change and cause discharge from choirs.

Apparently some would go for that, or it wouldn’t even be on the table.

I’m quite aware. I spent time in a few countries where that is prevalent. That did not sound like the procedure being described in the article.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.