Originally Posted by pippet
I really thought that was well written actually.
Well, yes, in the sense that she is a good wordsmth. It is pretty prose but it fails in the sense that it is well thought out and reasoned. Isn't that what we are looking for when we read something?
|I think that whether or not you agree with the issues, her statement is true - maybe not for all of us but for the majority of North America - these are definitely complex and personal matters to which there is no single easy answer.
Well, this is where we diverge. She says "Both medical circumcision and vaccination are complex, personal matters for which there is no single, easy answer"
and that is just not true. This is just throwing a red herring into the discussion. Medical circumcision is extremely rare and a medical circumcision in the first few days of life is non-existant. A medical circumcision would be one that was done to resolve a medical issue that had symptoms present or indications. The only indications present in newborns indicate that a circumcision should NOT be done as is the case with hypospadius/epispadius. All newborn circumcisions are just a cosmetic genital modification that is done for the esoteric satisfaction of others, not the man involved at the most basic level.
Then she says: "We trust both in the integrity of the child's body"
Well, this just makes no sense at all. To trust in the integrity of the child's body would be to trust in Mother Nature or a higher power that either/both know how to make baby boys best. To circumcise a baby boy at or near birth (or most anytime for that matter) is to distrust the normal and natural form of his body and the collective knowledge of years of the refinement process of evolution or the higher power. To circumcise a child is to violate the integrity of his body in the most intense, personal and private way possible.
Then she says: "and the inherent authority of the parents to make decisions for the family."
This is nothing more than apologia for our culture of unnecessary and invasive genital cutting. Infant male cutting should be able to stand the test of other similar procedures and if it will not stand that test, it should be eliminated. Would a parent be allowed to make a "family decision" to remove a child's ears? (or even the earlobes?) How about removing parts of a baby girl's genitals? Let's make the test even more difficult. How about prophylactically removing the tonsils or the appendix? Certainly, for a very few children, this would have benefits later in life that would eliminate the possibility of infections and illness and in the case of the appendix, the possibility of death from peridonitis. Do these stand the test? Of course not! Nor does infant male circumcision stand the test. The only way circumcision is allowed is because a doctor more than 130 years ago declared that circumcision was an allowable "family decision" to prevent the horror of masturbation and America accepted his declaration as fact and stubbornly clings to the validity of that declaration.
The truth is that male (or female, for that matter) is nothing more than a violation of a man's body in the most personal, intense and private way possible. There is nothing "medical" about it and it is not a "family decision" but simply a decision of the man that is hijacked by the family when the man is at his most vulnerable time of his life.
|To those that are converted then to you it is a simple matter with a single solution, but to the rest of the world that is just starting to educate themselves and question these practices, her statement is right on the money.
It is a simple matter with a single solution. There is no benefit to circumcision. As it is practiced in America and the rest of the world, it is simply a violation of a man's body. Education or not, it should simply be banned without proven medical necessity. The medical profession does not have the courage to confront the issue and continues to perpetrate this violation of men through timidity and greed. Peggy's statement is simply an effort to calm the waters and not offend anyone. It is not the courageous statement we would expect from this source and to many of us, represents a backtracking of Mothering's previous stance on this issue that we have trusted for years.