or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › Anyone bothered by latest Mothering issue?!?!?!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anyone bothered by latest Mothering issue?!?!?!

post #1 of 200
Thread Starter 
I just got it today (I'm in Malaysia) and I coulnd't believe it when I read Peggy O'Mara's article: Both medical circumcision and vaccination are complex, personal matters for which there is no single, easy answer....We trust both in the integrity of the child's body and the inherent authority of the parents to make decisions for the family. :
post #2 of 200
:
post #3 of 200
I'm with you.

Occasionally I'm surprised by such neutral politically correct commentary in places where you'd expect a strong opinion (in this case, anti circ).

It's similar to Dr(s). Sears, who seems anti, but smooths over the issue in his (their) books.

Has Peggy O'Mara ever stated what circ choice she made with her own son?
That's usually the ultimate test!
post #4 of 200
Obviously, Peggy needs to spend some time here with us. She obviously doesn't understand that men have rights and circumcision of an infant just steals those rights. It's not even a 50/50 deal. Either the man's rights are 100% stolen or they are 100% preserved. There is no middle ground and there is no going back.

Is this article available on-line? Does anyone have Peggy's e-mail address?




Frank
post #5 of 200
Frank,
You can read the entire article if you follow the link to mothering magazine ("motherine" under the logo in the upper left corner, to the left of "rules") and then find the article. It's this month's editorial.

The OP did not quote the full paragraph, which is:
"In natural family living, we want to trust in the body’s innate capacity to heal itself and see illness as a necessary immune stimulant, not a bothersome nuisance. Accordingly, natural family living is cautious about medical interventions. Medical circumcision, for example, is questioned because the procedure’s claimed benefits remain unsupported by scientific evidence. Vaccinations are also questioned so that parents can exercise informed consent. Both medical circumcision and vaccination are complex, personal matters for which there is no single, easy answer. Here in particular we fall back on trust in the individual, which is the foundation of natural family living. We trust both in the inherent integrity of the child’s body and in the inherent authority of the parent to make decisions for the family."
(emphasis mine)

It's still not the resounding condemnation of circ. that one could hope for... but it is (very) slightly less offensive than the edited version in the OP.
post #6 of 200
Thread Starter 
Here is the link. http://www.mothering.com/guest_edito...place/130.html

This part is a bit past the middle:

Quote:
Accordingly, natural family living is cautious about medical interventions. Medical circumcision, for example, is questioned because the procedure’s claimed benefits remain unsupported by scientific evidence. Vaccinations are also questioned so that parents can exercise informed consent. Both medical circumcision and vaccination are complex, personal matters for which there is no single, easy answer. Here in particular we fall back on trust in the individual, which is the foundation of natural family living. We trust both in the inherent integrity of the child’s body and in the inherent authority of the parent to make decisions for the family.
I had to bold it again. It makes me so sad.
I own the NFL book by Peggy O'M, but I don't have it with me. If I remember correctly, the section on circ is unequivocally against it.

You can email
peggy@mothering.com
post #7 of 200
Thread Starter 
Quote:
You can read the entire article if you follow the link to mothering magazine ("motherine" under the logo in the upper left corner, to the left of "rules") and then find the article. It's this month's editorial.

The OP did not quote the full paragraph, which is:
"In natural family living, we want to trust in the body’s innate capacity to heal itself and see illness as a necessary immune stimulant, not a bothersome nuisance. Accordingly, natural family living is cautious about medical interventions. Medical circumcision, for example, is questioned because the procedure’s claimed benefits remain unsupported by scientific evidence. Vaccinations are also questioned so that parents can exercise informed consent. Both medical circumcision and vaccination are complex, personal matters for which there is no single, easy answer. Here in particular we fall back on trust in the individual, which is the foundation of natural family living. We trust both in the inherent integrity of the child’s body and in the inherent authority of the parent to make decisions for the family."
(emphasis mine)

It's still not the resounding condemnation of circ. that one could hope for... but it is (very) slightly less offensive than the edited version in the OP
We must have posted at the same time.
The whole paragraph might go over the copyright rules at MDC anyway, but I did quote most of it in my last post, after looking it up online. And I didn't EDIT the paragraph, I hadn't yet looked it up online, so I simply TYPED UP those sentences off the magazine, not my version.
What you put your emphasis on both in the inherent integrity of the child’s body was indeed in my OP, BTW.

Either way, the message is clear and appalling IMO. These are points made:

1. circumcision is questioned (claimed benefits remain unsupported by scientific evidence)
2. circumcision is a complex, personal matter for which there is no single, easy answer
3. Trust in the individual, in the inherent integrity of the child’s body and in the inherent authority of the parent to make decisions for the family

What I think:

1. ok
2. it's a personal matter for the owner of the penis, but genital integrity is not a complex thought. There IS a single easy answer: circumcision is mutilation and a violation of human rights.
3. Trust in the inherent integrity of the child’s body - YES. But not in the inherent authority of the parent to make decisions for the family in this case. I wonder if Peggy feels the same way about girls in Africa who undergo FGM due to their parents' authority to make that decision?

How does this sound? (simply subbed circ with FGM and deleted vax), kept everything else as stated by POM (this time I did copy and paste so everyone is satisfied):

FGM for example, is questioned because the procedure’s claimed benefits remain unsupported by scientific evidence. FGM is a complex, personal matter for which there is no single, easy answer. Here in particular we fall back on trust in the individual, which is the foundation of natural family living. We trust both in the inherent integrity of the child’s body and in the inherent authority of the parent to make decisions for the family.
post #8 of 200
With the NFL book,if I remember correctly while it did not advocate circ it did recommend to atleast wait till a child was 6 months old to cut him up.Somehow being older makes it better.

If you want to sell your product you are going to be neutral on matters that might cause you to lose quite a bit of money/support.

While I do suppport choice in the matter of vaccinations I see no middle ground or allowable choice(by parents) when it comes to genital cutting. It is not their place to alter a child's genitals in any way...even in cases where the sex is unknown. The matter should be left to the owner.
post #9 of 200
it doesn't bother me. I know Mothering has a large Muslim & Jewish readership. i don't see how alienating so many people would be good for the cause of natural parenting. I think it would be wrong for Peggy to ignore the huge issue of circ in the religious community.

I know some people feel that respecting religious circ is nothing short of respecting murder, but even religious Muslims & Jews deserve a little respect. The horrible hatred and anger directed against Jews and Muslims in the world today warrents a little compassion, imo. Esp from a compassionate publication like Mothering. You don;t have to respect circ, but try and understand thousands of years of religious observance.

believe me, i know I have set myself up here for witch hunt flaming. I tried to not post. But I am going to unsub from the thread, as I have said what i think and won't argue the point. I didn't circ my own sons-- i am anti-circ.
post #10 of 200
I, too, disliked the comment about "parental authority." No parent has that authority.
post #11 of 200
...
post #12 of 200
No parent should have that authority. When a child is old enough to make his own (even religious) decisions, that is when a choice should be made. This just is NOT a parents "right" I love mothering, but I disagree with ANY neutrality on this issue. FGM is done for "religious" reasons too. MGM is no different.
post #13 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilaria
FGM for example, is questioned because the procedure’s claimed benefits remain unsupported by scientific evidence. FGM is a complex, personal matter for which there is no single, easy answer. Here in particular we fall back on trust in the individual, which is the foundation of natural family living. We trust both in the inherent integrity of the child’s body and in the inherent authority of the parent to make decisions for the family.
keep your hands off my genitals.

UUmom, peggy makes the point of saying medical circumcision in the article. she does not even address religious circumcision. so i don't see how would it be offensive? if she would come out against ALL medical circumcision she would not have to be opposed to religious circumcision....

her language is obviously very carefully crafted not to offend anyone.
post #14 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilaria
We must have posted at the same time.
The whole paragraph might go over the copyright rules at MDC anyway, but I did quote most of it in my last post, after looking it up online. And I didn't EDIT the paragraph, I hadn't yet looked it up online, so I simply TYPED UP those sentences off the magazine, not my version.
What you put your emphasis on both in the inherent integrity of the child’s body was indeed in my OP, BTW.

Either way, the message is clear and appalling IMO. These are points made:

1. circumcision is questioned (claimed benefits remain unsupported by scientific evidence)
2. circumcision is a complex, personal matter for which there is no single, easy answer
3. Trust in the individual, in the inherent integrity of the child’s body and in the inherent authority of the parent to make decisions for the family

What I think:

1. ok
2. it's a personal matter for the owner of the penis, but genital integrity is not a complex thought. There IS a single easy answer: circumcision is mutilation and a violation of human rights.
3. Trust in the inherent integrity of the child’s body - YES. But not in the inherent authority of the parent to make decisions for the family in this case. I wonder if Peggy feels the same way about girls in Africa who undergo FGM due to their parents' authority to make that decision?

How does this sound? (simply subbed circ with FGM and deleted vax), kept everything else as stated by POM (this time I did copy and paste so everyone is satisfied):

FGM for example, is questioned because the procedure’s claimed benefits remain unsupported by scientific evidence. FGM is a complex, personal matter for which there is no single, easy answer. Here in particular we fall back on trust in the individual, which is the foundation of natural family living. We trust both in the inherent integrity of the child’s body and in the inherent authority of the parent to make decisions for the family.
Hey, hold on before you start flaming me. Don't start jumping to conclusions as to my stance on either circ or FGM.

All I did was give Frank the full paragraph. Whether you typed out parts (as you did), or copy-pasted and then cut out parts (which you didn't), when quoting text if you do not quote the full context, it is technically an "edited" quote (as in "not exact quote", as opposed to "full, exact quote"; "edited" does not mean only "changed").

There was no judgement of *you* or your post intended.

My only comment was that the full version, including the explicit statement that the alleged benefits are not scientifically proven, was (to quote myself) "(very) slightly less offensive" than the lines you quoted in isolation.

As for the FMG analogy you put forth, my reaction is the same.

An article that states only that FMG is a "complex, personal matter for which there is no single, easy answer....We trust both in the integrity of the child's body and the inherent authority of the parents to make decisions for the family" is, IMO, more offensive than one that also explicitly states that there are no scientifically proven "benefits" to the procedure.

Do you understand what I was trying to say now?

Also, have you noticed that we both quote the sentence "We trust both in the inherent integrity of the child’s body and in the inherent authority of the parent to make decisions for the family" but we each seem to focalise on the implications of different parts of the sentence?

I read "the inherent integrity of the child's body" and take away from that part of the sentence a slant *against* circ., this phrase being the most striking for me in the sentence. When I add that to the second half, it leaves me with the impression of a moderately anti-circ tone with the sub-text of something along the lines of it is parents' responsibility to make that decision and as NFL parents we believe the child's body is inherently as it should be (and by implication it is not the responsiblity of ignorant doctors with a foreskin to grind).

On the other hand (and no "rightly" or "wrongly" implied or intended), you seem (correct me if I'm wrong) to focus on "the inherent authority of the parent to make decisions for the family" as a blanket authorisation for parents to decide *to* circ, canceling out as it were the first half of the sentence...

I'll just conclude this by quoting myself again (in case you missed it before reacting to my post) "It's still not the resounding condemnation of circ. that one could hope for..."

edited for a typo I missed
post #15 of 200
Thread Starter 
Exactly Elphaba.
And anyway MDC has many Muslim and Jewish members as well. Yet, MDC is very clearly AGAINST CIRCUMCISION (hence the title for this forum) *no matter the reason*. Posts in support or defense of circ, even for religious reasons, are simply NOT ALLOWED here. So, why the hypocrisy?

(BTW, I live in a Muslim country and I love everything about it. I understand religious practices and traditions. I am all for cultural relativism and tolerance, but basic human rights such as genital integrity for children is where I, personally, draw the line. And I am consistently intolerant of violations thereof, whatever the religion, the tradition or the reason.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ione
Hey, hold on before you start flaming me. Don't start jumping to conclusions as to my stance on either circ or FGM.
Where did I flame you?
And I gathered you're anti-circ in your pp, so I didn't need to jump to any conclusions.

Quote:
you seem (correct me if I'm wrong) to focus on "the inherent authority of the parent to make decisions for the family" as a blanket authorisation for parents to decide *to* circ, canceling out as it were the first half of the sentence...
It's a telling sentence. I think that as far as circumcision goes, parents have NO SUCH AUTHORITY, and that sentence shouldn't be there. It sounds very similar to what I hear people say (my dh too, actually) "Oh, circ is bad, evil, no reason for it. Baby is fine without it. BUT parents have a right to make that choice" I believe they DO NOT and I am sad POM disagrees. I expected more from Mothering. I really did, that's all.
post #16 of 200
I misread your tone, then. No offense (taken or intended).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilaria
I think that as far as circumcision goes, parents have NO SUCH AUTHORITY, and that sentence shouldn't be there.
I suppose this is where we differ, slightly. Ideally, the only person who should have such authority is the person seeking circ (or FGM) for themselves, I agree.

However, we are not there yet, at least not everywhere. Until we live in a world (or culture or society) that does not promote circumcision for spurious reasons, or a society (or culture or world) that bans circumcisions except when truly medically necessary, AND until we can be sure that no medical practitioner has a financial stake in promoting unjustified circumcisions to "make a buck" or because of his or her own personal prejudices, someone must have the authority to REFUSE circumcision on behalf of babies and children too young to defend themselves.

And, until society or law takes up the slack, it is (and IMO should be since one of the key roles in parenting is protecting your children to the best of your ability IMO) the parents' responsibility to make that decision of defence. Unfortunately, if you place this burden of responsibility on parents, you also--and unfortunately--legally give them the authority to decide the opposite.
post #17 of 200
Thread Starter 
True. But, see, I thought Mothering magazine was already 'there'.
post #18 of 200
I too thought the statement was waaaaay too wishy-washy. I'm sorry it got lumped in with vaccines. I don't vax but I'm pro-INFORMED choice on vaccines. I think there are a lot more pros and cons on the vax issue than there are on the circ issue.

The take-away message I got from it smacked of "let's make the right decision for our family" as if there is ever a benefit to the FAMILY of genital reduction surgery for an INDIVIDUAL.

Hey, let's write letters to the editor, shall we?
post #19 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirky
Hey, let's write letters to the editor, shall we?
post #20 of 200
Let's hold our horses for a minute please. I don't think it will do much good to flood Peggy's e-mail box with hundreds of messages. As a matter of fact, I think it could be counter productive.

Let me make a suggestion . . . Let's all have our say here. I'll compose a message about this that only addresses the parental right issue. I'm not going to beat her up or anything like that, just propose that she rethink the issue somewhat from the viewpoint that since circumcision is permanent and irreversible, doesn't the ultimate decision lie with the person who will have to live with the decision long after the parents are dead and gone. I'll send it tomorrow afternoon along with a link to this thread where she can see everyone's opinion in a concise and well assembled whole.

That being the case, let's stay far away from religion and lets be respectful of Peggy and the tightwire she has to walk. If you have said something that should not have been said or if something could have been better put, now is the time to start editing those posts.

Does this sound good to everyone?



Frank
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › Anyone bothered by latest Mothering issue?!?!?!