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?!?!?! - Page 5

post #81 of 200
Peggy will be holding a chat this Wednesday 1 PM EST. Perhaps one or more of you can attend the chat and ask your questions.
post #82 of 200
Thread Starter 
I would love to be able to ask her a few questions 'in person', unfortunately, I will be flying from Malaysia to Italy on Wednesday (and Thursday! a 28 hr trip! by myself with my 2 little ones...but I digress...)
post #83 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by bell bottom blues
Is it possible that she meant the first part to refer to circ (trusting in the inherest integrity of the child's body) and the second part only refers to vaccines (parents making informed choices)?
She's a better writer than that. She knows how to make herself clear.
post #84 of 200
I don't think circumcision is a complex decision. It's NOT like vaccines. Vaccines have 2 sides to it. Circumcision doesn't. It's an assault on a newborn baby and that is all it is. no "second side" or "good side" to circumcision. It's plain WRONG.
post #85 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by loving-my-babies
It's an assault on a newborn baby and that is all it is. no "second side" or "good side" to circumcision. It's plain WRONG.

Ironically, so many mothers wouldn't know that if it hadn't been for Mothering (and the Fleiss articles) in the first place.
post #86 of 200
Thread Starter 
That is ironic, and kind of sad. I wonder what happened to the "Case AGAINST circ" stance? It was clear cut and to the point. I wonder if this forum will follow suit and be renamed.
I feel sick to my stomach about this. Mothering was, I thought, the only magazine worth getting, I'd look forward to every issue like a child at Christmas and then I'd read it all in one breath....
post #87 of 200
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and maybe people opposing circumcision would show up here more often if it was renamed and we could convince them to see things our way ('cause we'd all still be here, of course!).

Though the lack of response from Mothering is rather disturbing...

love and peace.
post #88 of 200
Thread Starter 
I disagree, I think language and semantics are very important. But that might be due to my MA in Linguistics.
post #89 of 200
UPDATE - went to chat with Peggy today and posted a brief summary here, will post a link to the transcript when it comes out:

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...61#post3410561
post #90 of 200
Edited or unedited, Peggy's statement is shocking. I am glad I stopped subscribing a couple of yr. ago. I thought the magazine was getting inconsistent in some ways, but I never dreamed it would come to this.

Since when does Mothering magazine have to cater to folks who are still living in the 7th century? Yes, if you remain neutral on male infant circ, you will undoubtedly attract more people to "natural" parenting. . . doesn't anybody get the irony here?

I wonder what could be next.
post #91 of 200
This isn't the place for it, but since it was mentioned... there aren't two sides to vaccination, just as there aren't two sides to circ. If there is, one "side" of vax is a pack of lies and misinformation. I'm just as bothered by the tiptoeing around the chemical assaults on children as I am about the "un-chemical" assaults such as circ.
post #92 of 200
Calm,

I couldn't agree with you more. I wish people would stop saying the two sides thing to the vaccine debate and compare it to this one with circumcision on how cut and dry it is..I see them both the same...both as assaults to the human body. I spent several days gingerly watching my little baby in the ER after having a seizure from her two month shots. I wince whenever people who have vaccinated and got lucky that just maybe their child didn't get damaged by it say these things when several of us out here weren't so lucky so please folks, don't go there with that argument.

On topic though, You guys here have educated me about circumcision. I'm glad my first baby wasn't a boy or I would have due to misinformation. After reading this forum, if my second one is a boy, I won't circumsize. I just came here out of curiosity and to see if I could learn anything and boy did I ever.


Sherra
post #93 of 200
This is wonderful to hear, Sherra.
post #94 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm
This isn't the place for it, but since it was mentioned... there aren't two sides to vaccination, just as there aren't two sides to circ. If there is, one "side" of vax is a pack of lies and misinformation. I'm just as bothered by the tiptoeing around the chemical assaults on children as I am about the "un-chemical" assaults such as circ.
We don't vax, but I do understand why someone would choose to. Immunology is complex. There are way too many unanswered questions for it to be the no-brainer circ is.
post #95 of 200
I understand why someone would choose to vax, sure.

- There is so much info "for" vaccination,

- the info for vax is easier to get,

- it is pushed on us to the point of being almost a legality,

- conforming to the norm.

- "Everyone does it, it must be ok."

- the medical community endorses it.

But I understand why someone would choose to vax in the same way I understand those who have circumcised their sons - see list above. It isn't a no-brainer until you have all the facts, just like circ. Once you learn things such as a) it takes a full year for the effects of the vax to work (thereby rendering the argument that newborns/infants are of decreased risk in their first yet null and void) and b) if there is an outbreak, there are no documented reports of those vaccinated suffering less or not at all from the disease.

Like, aren't those the two biggest reasons we consider vaxing our children? Especially the protective new mother holding a newborn, we tend to freak at the thought of others breathing on our child let alone getting some horrific whooping cough. But it is pointless - told to me by five separate doctors and published in an Australian medical journal - that they are not effective in the first year. And only one doc had the guts to tell me that they aren't effective at all and wouldn't vaccinate his children for love nor money.

No brainer. If informed.
post #96 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilaria
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. :
I really thought that was well written actually. Certainly it's going to enrage some people and not others but given the fact that both those issues are being so hotly debated these days (and that's a good thing), 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. 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.
post #97 of 200
To my mind, the answer, the truth, is already there. It exists, waiting for those who currently have the wrong answer, or who have simply never asked the question. But just because (general you) are misinformed, it doesn't mean there is no single right answer. If (general you) put away your preconceived notions and look, you should be able to see it. I guess where she's right is that it may not be easy, but that is no excuse for pretending there are many different answers.
post #98 of 200
"It isn't a no-brainer until you have all the facts, just like circ."

AMEN AMEN AMEN


It also is A NO BRAINER if you end up with a child that has seizures because of her vaccines like I did. No statistic they spew will make you feel better.........nor explain it or make the "other side" more attractive. Put yourself in those shoes. If you want to get technical, one can use the argument about circumsicions that their boys turned out fine so it's ok. Well, when you really get educated, you find out it's really not all that ok..neither are vaxes as some of you state.

Get educated about everything regardless of your previous thoughts..we are the parent..not the doc..not the media..not our congressman! I'm just glad I kept an open mind to you guys on this subject, or my next boy would have been circumsized! Keep the mind open, learn, read, experience!



Sherra
post #99 of 200
Quote:
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?


Quote:
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.



Quote:
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.



Frank
post #100 of 200
Good point, Frank. I just realized Peggy wrote "medical circumcision" is a complex decision. It's not, it really upsets me that people think this is such a complex decision. To me, it's as uncomplex as deciding not to perform female genital mutilation on my daughter.
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?!?!?!