Mothering › Forums › Health › The Case Against Circumcision › "Bring the WHOLE baby home..."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Bring the WHOLE baby home..."  

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
(Preface: On another forum, a parent who plans to continue cutting her sons was angry that I referred to my intact son as "happy, healthy, whole". She insisted her circumcised son was whole, too, regardless of what I 'believed'.)

There's an intactivist phrase, "Bring the whole baby home, say no to circumcision.", in fact, I have a button that says precisely that. Both here and in other forums circumcising parents sometimes balk at the idea that we refer to intact children as "whole", so I thought it might be helpful to share the definition of "whole" so we can see where it does and doesn't apply to genital integrity.

---

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
whole [hohl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1.comprising the full quantity, amount, extent, number, etc., without diminution or exception; entire, full, or total: He ate the whole pie. They ran the whole distance.

An intact child posesses his whole penis; a circumcised child retains only part.

2.containing all the elements properly belonging; complete: We have a whole set of antique china.

The foreskin comes standard; an intact penis is whole; a circumcised penis is missing something.

3.undivided; in one piece: to swallow a thing whole.

There's a Men's Health article on circumcision entitled, "Separated at Birth". Circumcision forcefully parts a baby's foreskin from his glans (the AAP uses the term, "dissection") and then permanently separates it from his body as it's excised. A circumcised penis isn't whole.

4.Mathematics. integral, or not fractional.
5.not broken, damaged, or impaired; intact: Thankfully, the vase arrived whole.

"Routine infant male circumcision does cause pain and permanent loss of healthy tissue."
-College of Physicians & Surgeons of British Columbia (CPSBC)

Circumcision is a loss; it's damage. A circumcised penis is no longer whole. It removes up to half of the skin on a future man's penis, specialized structures like the ridged band and frenulum (male g-spot), several feet of blood vessels, 240 feet of nerves, and tens of thousands of nerve endings. It strips the glans of it's built-in protection, permanently externalizes mucousal tissue, resulting in a lifetime of keratinization. Circumcision leaves a scar.


6.uninjured or unharmed; sound: He was surprised to find himself whole after the crash.

A circumcised male or female has both been injured & harmed; their genitals are no longer intact; their bodies aren't whole.

7.pertaining to all aspects of human nature, esp. one's physical, intellectual, and spiritual development: education for the whole person.
–noun
8.the whole assemblage of parts or elements belonging to a thing; the entire quantity, account, extent, or number: He accepted some of the parts but rejected the whole.

A circumcised penis is missing parts; it is no longer whole.

9.a thing complete in itself, or comprising all its parts or elements.

A circumcised penis is not complete; it is no longer whole.

10.an assemblage of parts associated or viewed together as one thing; a unitary system.
—Idioms

A whole penis includes a foreskin.

11.as a whole, all things included or considered; altogether: As a whole, the relocation seems to have been beneficial.
12.on or upon the whole,
a.in view of all the circumstances; after consideration.
b.disregarding exceptions; in general: On the whole, the neighborhood is improving.
13.out of whole cloth, without foundation in fact; fictitious: a story made out of whole cloth.
[Origin: bef. 900; ME hole, hool (adj. and n.), OE h?l (adj.); c. D heel, G heil, ON heill; see hale1, heal; sp. with w reflects dial. form]

---

Jen
post #2 of 28
That's great, good job!!! Denial/ignorance runs so deep when you can't even acknowledge that cutting off part of your child's penis is actually removing part of their body.
post #3 of 28
Great post, Jen!
post #4 of 28
Did you post this on the other board too? Maybe ask her if she considers a circumcised female whole. Or someone missing a finger whole.
post #5 of 28
Her son may be healthy....but if you remove something...he is no longer whole. Maybe she needs "whole" defined?:
post #6 of 28
good job jen!

I think once ppl spend time seeing an intact boy get to see the full foreskin around him that to 'really see how the 'glans' is truly a internal organ' how removing foreskin is like disecting a frog ( you remove a organ from the child) foreskin is a ORGAN & ppl need to get that through there Head Your 'removing "blood vessels and nerves" Ridged Band & lets not forget about the Frenulm! Plus also removing sebaceous glands the glans that 'create moisture' to help keep the glans nice & moist!

But hardly anyone gets to know the foreskin for very long to know 'what it does because it is automatically removed at birth for some males!!!!!!

We got to try & educate ppl that there is MORE to Foreskin than just skin!!
post #7 of 28
Good for you, and thank you for making that very frustrating argument.

Its a great post, and straight to the point.

Its THIS part that I think people don't realize and/or accept.

"It strips the glans of it's built-in protection, permanently externalizes mucousal tissue, resulting in a lifetime of keratinization."

Its like cutting off our labia majora and minora.

Our soft tissues wouldn't come out the other side unscathed.
post #8 of 28
I also hate when a pro-circ doesn't see how circ'ing is mutilation. If you look at the definition... circ'ing IS mutilation! I have the license plate frame that says "Circumcision Harms, take the whole baby home" Awesome!
post #9 of 28
Thread Starter 
This particular woman refuses to touch my spin-off thread (exploring the definition of "whole") with a ten foot pole, but she invited me to email her---not so she could play 'semantics games' with me, mind you---but so she could tell me what's on her mind, which she assured me I wouldn't like.

I responded:

Semantics is "the study of meaning"; I think the words we use matter. When I state my son is "happy, healthy, whole" I'm not doing so playfully or lightheartedly. Allowing the genitals of healthy children intact is a serious matter to me; I'm not playing games when I use the term "whole" in the context of circumcision.

Anything I'd say to you privately, I'm quite comfortable saying publically.

The other thread delves into the definition of the word, "whole", and how it applies to the issue of genital integrity. I again welcome you to make your case for a circumcised boy or girl being "whole", there. If you'd rather not that's certainly your prerogative and I respect it, but I will not email you just so you can say things to me that would not be considered appropriate here.


Boy, did she fly off the handle...

I'm now condescending, arrogant, insulting, and lack proper social skills donchaknow.

Jen
post #10 of 28
I am not circing my soon-to-be born son, but my first son is circed, and I have a problem with someone calling one of them WHOLE and the other not . . .

Despite the definition, saying someone is "not whole" implies that they are not as real or equal to another . . .

Would you go up to a person who has only one arm and say that they are not a whole person, even if it was their own mistake or a mistake of another person (like a parent) that caused them to lose that arm?

People are more than the sum of their body parts . . .


and I'm not sure what is accomplished by attacking the wholeness of people - shouldn't this energy be put into compassionate education?

I came to this thread for support and objective info, and am leaving feeling judged . . . and sad.
post #11 of 28
Thread Starter 
jbpoetmom,

When you know better, you do better and I commend you for reconsidering the issue of circumcision with your new son. I'm sorry that this post made you feel judged. The use of the term, "whole" in the context of a child having all of their body parts is accurate though. There is no implication in the definition that not being whole makes a person less 'real' or 'valuable', and it's certainly not my intention to imply that when I use the word within the realm of this debate.

Jen
post #12 of 28
Be careful. I think it violates the UA to copy stuff from other boards to comment upon...you state great info so I don't want to see the thread locked...not sure, but thought I would mention it just in case.
post #13 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rani View Post
Be careful. I think it violates the UA to copy stuff from other boards to comment upon...you state great info so I don't want to see the thread locked...not sure, but thought I would mention it just in case.
I was quoting myself, so that should be alright.

Jen
post #14 of 28
Quote:
The use of the term, "whole" in the context of a child having all of their body parts is accurate though.
Yes, Jen, it is "accurate," but you are also most definitely implying inequality of a person's worth when you use the term "whole" and "not whole." Implications don't come from definitions; they come from how a word is used and why. You are also implying that circumcised boys are not "happy" and "healthy" - no - in fact - that's more than an implication there . . . and this, of course, is not true.

My point was not to get an apology, but thank you for it. I am not sad for myself, but sad because I believe this type of "debate" should be replaced with disseminating facts to change minds. You are not going to change that woman's mind by attacking the wholeness of her children, in fact, you may push her further away . . .

If your purpose IS to change her mind and save her children from circ., then wouldn't you be glad to e-mail her privately as a chance to win her over with the facts? Why keep it in a public forum? To embarrass her? To win a debate? Why are you are treating her like an enemy? She, like all parents who circ., are also victims of much brainwashing by society and this seems like a lost opportunity to undo some of that.

I just don't get it . . .
post #15 of 28
Quote:
Yes, Jen, it is "accurate," but you are also most definitely implying inequality of a person's worth when you use the term "whole" and "not whole." Implications don't come from definitions; they come from how a word is used and why.
Implications can also come from the reader. In this case, perhaps your experiences have made you read more into the phrase than intended. And by saying her son is healthy, happy, whole, she is not, in my reading, making any comments at all about your son. Sure, the debate happened when a mom said her son is whole. But just the phrase itself assumes nothing about anyone else's son. For example, If I said "I am asian" or "My son is asian" that says nothing about your son or anyone else's. This poster "referred to her own son as healthy, happy, whole" thus she is not saying anything about your son or anyone else's.


If the phrase made you think about your son, then, well, that is on your reading. Just as the phrase made this other poster being talked about angry because her son isn't considered to be "whole" by the inactivist community.
post #16 of 28
I also want to add that when you are containing the discussion to a certain topic (in this case circumcision), it doesn't seem right to take a phrase like this and apply it everywhere. She is saying her son is "whole" in the sense that his penis has no parts amputated. But I see no placing of more "worth" on the child.

I am willing to bet that the OP would love her son and place just as much worth in him if he were circumcised.

Also, she may not want to email the mom because she may already know the tactics of this poster if she is a regular to the debate. I have found that debate is usually all about the lurkers. I don't waste my time trying to change the minds of those already stuck in the mud, but I know that by openly debating them I will sway the onlookers.
post #17 of 28
Exactly.
post #18 of 28
Thread Starter 
I do already know the poster and their tactics in debate. They are not open to new information. They are very defensive about their <UA VIOLATION> reasons for circumcising. None of the arguments are rational and they were quite hostile and immature from the start. That's why I'm not emailing her. If I thought there was any chance of calm discourse or getting through, I wouldn't hesitate to contact her privately.

Jen
post #19 of 28
carriebft,

I really don't want this to get personal and be about my sons and I.

I AM trying to figure out why this type of whole vs. not whole debate goes on when I don't see it accomplishing anything but inflaming emotions.

You made a good point about public vs. private debating, if onlookers can be swayed that would be great, but I still think we should invest time and effort into those who seem stuck.

I am adament that I am not reading into the word "whole" because of my perceptions/background - educators refer to teaching the "whole child" - which includes mentally, physically, emotionally (a combination of inner and outer qualities).

"Whole" is a loaded word when used to describe a person!

Speaking of whole persons, I'm about to push one out into the world. Hopefully soon - I'm off to count contractions . . .
post #20 of 28
Jen - thanks for the background info - that helps put things into context - spar away . . .
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Case Against Circumcision
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Forums › Health › The Case Against Circumcision › "Bring the WHOLE baby home..."