Advertisements

Detroit Doctor’s Defense About as Convincing as ISIS Promising Women’s Suffrage

A Detroit doctor was arrested recently for performing female genital mutilation (FGM) on little girls as young as six years old! I had to step back a bit and take deep breaths before writing about this, because every time I looked at her foul face, I wanted to rip it off and feed it to swine. How anyone could do something like this – a doctor, who has sworn to do no harm – to an innocent little kid in order to ensure these little girls never enjoy sex and never become intimate with their loved one without mass amounts of pain, all in the name of chastity!

The story is sickening. Little children forced by their mothers to spread for this the Johns Hopkins-educated “physician,” and be mutilated after what appears to have been an anesthetic shot. Yeah, they were fully awake.

The girl said she took off her pants and underwear and laid on an examining table with her knees spread apart and that the doctor “pinched” her on the place she goes “pee.”

Also on April 10, the second girl told investigators she came to Detroit and went to a doctor’s office.

The girl also identified Dr. Nagarwala as the doctor she saw in Detroit and that the doctor took off her pants and underwear and put her on a table. The girl told investigators she “got a shot” on her upper right thigh and that it hurt and she screamed.

This twisted, sick sow mutilated little girls for her warped religious faith, and the mothers who dragged their kids to undergo this procedure, lying to them about what they were about to undergo, need to be prosecuted as well. This is believed to be the first criminal case that’s brought under the law that criminalizes FGM in the United States. Acting Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Blanco said, “According to the complaint, despite her oath to care for her patients, Dr. Nagarwala is alleged to have performed horrifying acts of brutality on the most vulnerable victims.” Good for Mr. Blanco and good for the DOJ for having the balls to bring this odious gargoyle to justice.

And no, this certainly is not the same as circumcision, that’s performed widely not just for religious purposes, but also for health and hygiene. There are people who argue about the health benefits and some frothing adult douche freaks who actually affix weights to their junk in order to stretch the skin back over the head of their penis, after being circumcised as infants, but ultimately, it’s a relatively safe choice that has no impact on sexual pleasure and is certainly not performed to ensure sexual activity is so unpleasant and painful that the patient shies away from sexual activity until absolutely necessary for procreation!

While parents may make the decision for their infant – and in some cases, more grown male individuals make that decision for themselves – there’s a lack of overwhelming medical evidence that the child experiences long term harm from the procedure.

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization says there is no health benefit to FGM, but there’s certainly a lot of harm.

  • Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.
  • The procedure has no health benefits for girls and women.
  • Procedures can cause severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later cysts, infections, as well as complications in childbirth and increased risk of newborn deaths.

While little girls in backwater shitholes are getting mutilated with dirty implements, rusty blades, and even broken glass by untrained hags who apparently enjoy ensuring that little girls grow up just as miserable and deformed as they were, incidents of harm and injury in male circumcision are rather rare, depending on age and implements used, according to the WHO.

Neonatal circumcision is a simpler procedure than adult circumcision and very low rates of complications (0.2–0.4%) have been consistently reported in large series of neonatal circumcisions in the United States of America and Israel (143, 154– 157). Most of these are relatively minor (bleeding and excess skin) but definition of “complication” varies – for example in one of these studies (157), the rate of “significant” complications (systemic infections, haemorrhage in a patient with factor VII deficiency, circumcisions of infants with hypospadias, denudation of the penile shaft) was 0.2%, but 2% of patients had some complication (mainly bleeding or infection).

The purpose differs. The procedure differs. The outcome differs.

One can oppose male circumcision and make that choice accordingly for their offspring, but you’d have to be an ignoramus not to see the difference between a procedure designed to keep girls chaste and pure until the husband decides it’s time to play by taking away her desire to be physically close with someone she loves and a procedure that for the most part has no lasting deleterious effects and has some documented health benefits.

For her part Nagarwala claimed in court that she merely removed “a mucus membrane from the genitals” for religious reasons, which was wrapped up and given to the parents to bury — a practice the defense claims is performed by a small sect of Indian-based Islam called Dawoodi Bohra. Of course, the women of Dawoodi Bohra would beg to differ. A total of 98 percent of respondents in a recent online survey said they were subjected to the practice known as khatna or khafd, which involves cutting the tip of the clitoris, and 81 percent of them said they were not okay with the procedure.

Nagarwala’s defense doesn’t hold water. She mutilated these children – while they were fully conscious – for her skewed religious ideals. This wasn’t harmless and it wasn’t a membrane. She scarred these children, and she should rot in prison.

If there’s any justice in this world, she’ll get “circumcised.” With a rusty shiv.

Advertisements

19 responses

  1. See… this is the shit that makes me mad. Why aren’t “feminists” all over this right here. Instead they are worrying about mansplaining, manspreading, and sexy women in video games while little girls IN THIS COUNTRY, not some third world shit hole, having their little lady bits chopped up.

    Infuriating.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Indeed. Why aren’t the established capital-F Feminists all over it? Probably something to do with not having the guts to come out and criticize something that would be defended as a curious cultural practice.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Because the perpetrators are of a protected culture/religion.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. As I said elsewhere, if the feminists complained about this, they’d be labeled as “raysis” and “islamaphobic” which is worse than mutilating a child in their eyes.

        Like

  2. “Johns Hopkins educated”??!! WTF?!!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I know, right? Embarrassing!

      Liked by 1 person

  3. I have no words to describe this horror.

    Like

  4. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard | Reply

    And Lefties would have “you” believe that Conservative Christians are the Greatest Danger. 😦

    Liked by 3 people

  5. I do have words to describe it, but they are unprintable.

    No excuses for this. None. If this creature’s license is not revoked, I want to know why. She cannot be trusted. She should not be practicing anything but prison jargon.

    Like

  6. Step One: Capture or otherwise acquire a passel of feral hogs.

    Step Two: Build a pen for the passel of feral hogs.

    Step Three: Get passel of feral hogs into pen.

    Step Four: Starve the passel of feral hogs for several days.

    Step Five: Throw the walking, talking piece of refuse passing itself off as a human into the pen.

    Step Six: Stand back and let nature take its course.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. “Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.” Charles Napier, in response to complaints that sati was a national custom.

    We need to treat this depravity as an individual choice to maim a child, with zero regard for where it came from. No use of custom, even as a mitigating factor. You mention purpose when distinguishing this abuse from circumcision. The intent is irrelevant – a sincere belief on the part of Nagarwala (who I would expect had the same harm inflicted upon her as a child) that it is in the best interest of girls to be so cut does not defend her actions. That level of invasion incurs absolute responsibility. She maimed children. Not because her knife slipped during surgery, not because she was pressed by an emergency and applied an unwarranted procedure. Because she calmly, and with notice to reconsider the act, decided to mutilate a child. Hang her. (Or whatever the max penalty is under the law, if they can get a conviction; I’m not looking to throw due process under a bus.) There really isn’t much more to it than that.

    You don’t need to address foreskin removal in a discussion of clitoris removal. The male analogue of a clitoridectomy is chopping off of the entire glans and some portion, possibly all, of the shaft, depending on how thorough the removal is. I am unaware of any culture that does that to children; I’ve never even heard of it being done by adults into extreme body modifications. These are not circumcision level, these are outright mutilation and should be punished as such. Equating the two indicates ignorance. Inferring permissiveness of the lesser level because it isn’t the greater is a jump.

    Male circumcision does affect sexual pleasure – removal of the foreskin exposes the glans to contact with clothes and decreases its sensitivity though constant stimulation. It also destroys the frenulum, which is quite sensitive. Men who’ve had circumcisions as adults (often due to phimosis) have confirmed this result: sex becomes less pleasurable. Not devoid of pleasure, certainly not painful, and orgasm is still very much possible (if somewhat harder). Decreased sexual pleasure is a reliable consequence; that is not usually the specific intent, but it is an expectable result. I suggest that this makes the approximate female equivalent the removal of the clitoral hood. (Which I classify as bad, but, relative to a clitoridectomy, of such lesser degree of bad that it’s a difference of kind) This would result in similar desensitization due to constant stimulation, reduction but not outright loss of pleasure and orgasm capability, and, as it removes a skin fold for dirt/bacteria to get stuck in, just like male circumcision: easier hygiene, decreased risk of infections, and decreased risk of STIs. It would also prevent it from causing inflammation.* All we’re missing is a correlation to decreased cancer (the articles explanation suggests that they jumped from correlation to causation; I suspect there’s a causal link via HPV susceptibility, but that would be listing STI resistance twice – why not list it a third time as decreased risk of immune deficiency when HIV transmission is decreased?) and a specific religious tradition. We might even have that last one; I’m not familiar with all genital mutilation traditions.

    We don’t need to be chopping on kids genitals, absent that kid having a specific condition to deal with. There is no advantage to it sufficient to require that that decision be made for them. When it comes to modifying other people’s genitalia, even our own children’s, “it has marginal health and convenience benefits” is an insufficient reason.

    And yes, those men hanging weights are loons, indeed – their obsession I could chalk up to eccentricity of priorities, but they can’t regrow the removed nerve endings, so that’s time and discomfort in the name of futility. Hang a rope out their pants and call it a tail…

    tl;dr: http://redpanels.com/1/

    *One of the potential effects of removal of foreskin is that the glans can become inflamed due to contact with urine soaked diapers. Possibly leading to a meatotomy. So that benefit can backfire.

    Like

    1. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t disagree the depraved bitch needs to die.

      The reason I do mention circumcision is the inevitable comparison that some people will bring up, which I figured I’d stave off.

      The side effects that you mention aren’t common both according to the Mayo Clinic and to the WHO. And given that the majority of men in the United States are circumcised, and most don’t report deleterious effects – and I’ve known plenty who have had it done as adults for religious reasons (long story, don’t ask) – I’d say it CAN happen, but doesn’t happen often.

      Legally, intent does matter. The intent to maim a child so she will remain “pure” and will have no desire to make herself impure due to the pain, vice an informed parental decision (whether or not you agree with said decision is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion) to ensure their kid is healthy (I think most parents these days do it for the hygiene factor, vice religious beliefs) – these are two very different things. It’s intent. It’s mens rea. It could mean the difference between a murder charge and involuntary manslaughter.

      But yes, she maimed children – callously and without regard to their welfare. Fry her.

      Like

      1. There are two ways mental state can matter: as an element of an offense, or as an aggravating/mitigating factor to influence severity within that offense.

        Murder vs. manslaughter. The exact elements vary state by state, but in mine it is either a lack of specific intent to kill, or a presence of specific intent to kill that is explained by a “sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection” which doesn’t count if they had time to cool off or did in fact cool off.

        She specifically intended to maim. She had ample time to reflect on it. Neither type of downgrade is present. It’s the full offense. The why of the intent, that doesn’t change the charge, that changes defenses. The homicide analogue of doing this for legitimate health reasons would be justifiable homicide – defense of self or others. That’s a complete defense if it works, and some degree of mitigating factor if it tries but isn’t sufficient. My position is that mild health benefits don’t cut it for justifying, and are a poor mitigating factor for, an usurpation of that kind of choice, and that religious conviction falls somewhere below that.

        Like

  8. So glad to read this. It was immensely frustrating to read the instapundit comments full of guys wailing about their dicks and refusing to understand the fundamental differences between the two.

    Like

  9. There are many evils in the world, but the evils hiding under the umbrella of religion seem to be the darkest.

    That women will probably only receive a remarkably short prison sentence and never legally practice medicine again. A less polite society – one not built on Judeo-Christian values – would flay her, and leave her in the sun for the vultures.

    Like

  10. There’s no mystery why American Liberals are silent about female genital mutilation–they are silent because they are scared. They know that the Christian tradition is to turn the other cheek to accusers, and so they attack Christians with impunity. They also know that the Muslim tradition is to kill anyone who speaks out against Islam, so they are silent.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. j.ericandreasen@gmail.com | Reply

    C’mon Nicki… It’s not like Women or Kafirs are “people”, or anything.

    Like

  12. I am a Christian, an American from birth. I know that there are many horrible crimes committed by religions of all flavors over the years. From the murderous crusades, to wars and pillaging and rapes that occurred during them, and genocides related to religion. But there can be nothing as disgusting as crimes against children, and this type of crime that has effects that last a life time, can never be forgiven. We as a nation have looked the other way for years. This is not the first time that I have heard of this and unfortunately, I suspect that it won’t be the last. There just doesn’t seem to be the motivation to do anything real to stop the religiously motivated killing and maiming. You hear it often, the family revenge killing of the teenage daughter for wearing the wrong clothes, or being too “Westernized”. Until the people in government and the prosecutors offices get serious about stopping these things, they will continue. The time has come to scream it to our congresscritters.

    Like

  13. In a way it doesn’t surprise me that she did this; I mean, if she’s surrounded by people who think her culture’s horrifying anti-female practices are … ignorable at best because she’s part of a protected cultural/religious group in the Left, why should she remotely ever think what she’s doing is wrong?

    There was some discussion some years back from … I forget what particular branch it was, but it may have been related to the American doctors and surgeons…. board? that were discussing/suggesting it might be okay to ‘nick’ or do a ‘symbolic cut’ on infant girls’ genitals, to accommodate/satisfy ‘cultural female circumcision.’ I don’t know if it was ever shut down or what happened to it.

    Gender selective abortions are common in a number of cultures and are supposedly illegal but try cracking down on that horrible practice – all the woman has to say, after all, is ‘it’s my body, it’s my choice’ never mind the reasons behind that ‘choice.’ You can find out the gender of a child between 16-20 weeks. And if that’ doctor’ above was carrying out FGM, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s likely a few out there willing to carry out gender-based abortions for cultural reasons (this was a controversy in the UK, and of course, the women’s rights groups upheld the ‘her choice, for any reason, it’s her body’ side.)

    It should surprise absolutely nobody that the leftist media in Australia is screaming ‘Anti-Muslim’ at the changes being done to the citizenship test in Australia. A number of the questions ask what the test-taker feels about preventing a girl from getting an education, their thoughts about wife beating in the privacy of their home, and female genital mutilation. I saw somewhere before that they also asked what laws that the test-taker thinks should be obeyed, but I don’t see that anywhere now so I could have been mistaken.

    http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/turnbull-government-ministers-defend-tough-new-changes-to-citizenship-test/news-story/170d06e44d12363f31112edd21070c32

    Like

We Want To Hear What You Have To Say

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: