Eliminating the term, "parental choice" from the debate...

[pdx.mothernurture]

Children are not slabs of clay to permanently mold and mar as parents see fit; they’re human beings. Circumcision may be the most profound example, next to slavery, of people being reduced to property. Proclaiming circumcision as a parental choice takes advantage of an infant’s temporary developmental inability to articulate his opposition in anything but uncoordinated struggle; he tenses against the restraint board, thighs and wrists bound, his whimpers, shrieks, and screams easily dismissed by the adults in attendance as him just being uncomfortable because he’s unwrapped, upset because he’s cold. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the giant pair of hands that have descended upon the center of his male identity and sexuality wielding needled syringe, clamp, and scalpel.

I think we ought to eliminate the term “parental choice” from the debate entirely, replacing it with a far more accurate and evocative alternative: parental whim. A whim is an "arbitrary thought or impulse" or "an odd or capricious notion or desire". Capricious is, "determined by chance or impulse or whim rather than by necessity or reason".

Thoughts?

Jen

[TigerTail]

My thoughts are that as usual, any terminology varying from that of the oppressors will be fought tooth & nail as 'hostile', 'mean', 'abusive' (good one from people promoting genital amputation of the helpless! . Etc.

[MommytoB]

I dislike that there is a parental right out there to allow a kid to be changed just by the request of the parent(s) then the future man he will become will get to live with the later after effects of the choice that there parent(s) made. The mother only has to live with changing gauze & putting vaseline on it for estimation of 10 days then it is assumed to be healed & forgotten after then .

I belive no parent should have a 'right to alter any part of their child body' and should not have any right to remove any part of their body.

Things I think should be removed if there was a for sure medical neccessity and I think that should have to have a 'say for disabled ppl too because a disability person may not have an ability to speak but if there nothing wrong why make something wrong because remember that story of how the parents allowed doctor to remove a few things on a girl to make her be a lil girl and to make her more comfortable . Really she won't be comfortable because #1 just because she had started to get bbs didn't mean she was going to add a period' but a removal of a uterus automatically causes menopause which is pretty bad for some - my mom is having some severe reactions from menopause! Then to stop growth for the 'bone growth doesn't stop the organ growth imagine the organ's trying to grow bigger while a body is shorter - they may have had in a right mind but -they were assuming they were thinking of 'her needs' but they in truthfully were thinking of their needs' didn't want to change bloody pads , didn't want to be able to lift out a taller kid so in my sense I would question if the kid was born to you & got heavier & heavier he couldn't walk but you had to lift him in & up the bed would that been so tiring for them that they would have sent him in for fat reduction surgery ?

One of my friends was continously heavy throughout her teens but as soon as she turned 21 she got a gastric bypass - it worked wonders for her.

[Lila]

Good observation, Jen. I agree. Tigertail is right, though. It would be an appropriate use of language among us intactivists, but the others would certainly get their panties in a bunch about it.

[Lila]

If you gave your kid a tattoo you'd get him taken away. Not that I want to tattoo my kids, but the point is that our culture recognizes that it's not our choice to make- to mod children's bodies. There's a wierd paradox.

[trmpetplaya]

I agree with TT about the change being fought... it's a good idea though! I think it might be more effective to argue about "parental choice" vs. the "personal choice" that it REALLY should be because the person whose anatomy it is should get to decide. How can any parent really know what their 1 day old infant will want to do with his or her body when he/she grows up?

They can't possibly know or make that decision for someone else. It should be a PERSONAL choice not a PARENTAL choice. I'd be mad as all get out if someone chopped any functional part of me off without my consent before I could oppose it...

love and peace.

[Cassandra M.]

Originally Posted by pdx.mothernurture

Children are not slabs of clay to permanently mold and mar as parents see fit; they’re human beings. Circumcision may be the most profound example, next to slavery, of people being reduced to property. Proclaiming circumcision as a parental choice takes advantage of an infant’s temporary developmental inability to articulate his opposition in anything but uncoordinated struggle; he tenses against the restraint board, thighs and wrists bound, his whimpers, shrieks, and screams easily dismissed by the adults in attendance as him just being uncomfortable because he’s unwrapped, upset because he’s cold. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the giant pair of hands that have descended upon the center of his male identity and sexuality wielding needled syringe, clamp, and scalpel.

Jen

Amen.

[jessjgh1]

It doesn't really stand up in a debate until people "get it" because they already rationalize what they are doing as most parents rationalize the necessity of a shot or a medically necessary intervention.

Until people understand that it is NOT medically necessary and the AAP revises and removes the statement that implies there are some 'medical benefits' to circumcision parents believe (or choose to rationalize) that they are usng their parental choice to prevent something inevitable or very likely. That they are preventing an alternate scenario that is 'worse' than the risks and pain of circumcsion.

And I know that bringing up Vax/shots is a whole other issue, but in mainstream land, refusing vaxes is often even more contraversial than intactness. It is well worth keeping the 2 issues apart at times.

In fact, until people TRUST intactness, it is not going to change but slowly. And I know, it took me having my child and THEN some time to fully get it and trust intactness (and the missing gaps of knowledge were rapidly filled when I foudn my way back here, btw).


Jessica

[Getz]

I agree with what you said.

I HATE HATE HATE when mainstreamers say circumcision was "the right decision for our family". What? How is a mutilated penis a "family" decision?!?!?! Whatever they need to do so they sleep better at night, I guess.

They all make me sick!

[Krystal323]

Originally Posted by Getz

I HATE HATE HATE when mainstreamers say circumcision was "the right decision for our family". What? How is a mutilated penis a "family" decision?!?!?!

if this wasn't so tragically morbid it'd be hilarious

[Microsoap]

I'm prob going to get heck for this, but...

If people are allowed to act on it because to them, the intact penis looks "unfinished" ("undone"), then why can't people get away with adding various types of penis piercings using the same sentiment? It's bizarre and totally unacceptable that removal of the foreskin is considered acceptable to society... and not that and/or adding a Prince Albert (a very mutilating penis piercing!), either by force (on an infant) or choice (if your 10-year-old son comes up to you and asks for a P.A.). You all know I'm not advocating penis piercing and just using this extreme measure to prove a point, but it of course really IRKS me that people don't shock over the removal of the foreskin without the explicit consent/knowledge of the owner of the penis-- the male minor in question-- but would over piercing or tattoos. KWIM???

[TigerTail]

I'd sooner let a 10 yr old kid making a conscious decision get himself a P.A., than skin an infant alive.

[paquerette]

I love you Jen. : You are always coming up with fresh new perspectives to make people think.

More specifically to this thread, I think this is just subtle enough that it may slip by them as insulting or whatnot. It's not quite as in-your-face as mutilation.

[Mommiska]

Originally Posted by Getz

I agree with what you said.

I HATE HATE HATE when mainstreamers say circumcision was "the right decision for our family". What? How is a mutilated penis a "family" decision?!?!?!

I totally agree with this - I was commenting about this to dh the other day. It is just totally weird that someone can say that circumcision is the 'right decision for our family' when it is only the baby boy who has been affected.

I think they mean that it is 'right' for them, because it was what they are most comfortable with. The Dad is happy, because his own circumcised status is validated (in his own mind). And Mom is happy because she has made the same decision as other people she knows, and she won't get any weird reactions (she thinks...this is one of the reasons why I think it is good to show surprise/upset/disgust/etc when we see that a little boy has been circumcised - shake the parents up and make them think), like she thinks she would if she left her son intact.

The decision to circumcise is ultimately about the parents, I think. And it is rationalised by them to try to make it about somehow 'saving' the child from the horrors of being intact.

[TigerTail]

Oh, I don't know, with 'cannibalism' to wave as a banner, 'mutilation' seems a pretty moderate stance to take.

Moving the bar, TT