If it were either/or - either the child is circumcised, but is breastfed, or he is intact, but not breastfed - which would be worse? This is not a real-life situation for me, but I am curious to see what people think. In a sense, which is the worse injury to the child?
Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking
Tara, njeb, Lilli, Quirky and mamaverdi:
If it were your genitals that were to be removed with little or no pain management or breast feeding, which would it be? If you've already answered this, please forgive me. I didn't go through all of the posts on this thread but I would appreciate if you would answer again.
Frank
Don't you mean, if it were YOUR genitals which were to be left intact and you ff your baby, or YOUR genitals that were to be removed with little or no pain management AND breastfeeding, which would you choose?
Yikes! In that case, I would choose to have no children. I personally think that this whole question is a false dichotomy, since it seems most mainstream people ff and circ., whereas most "alternative" people bf and leave intact. But that's just my experience.
I would have to choose leaving myself intact and ff.
Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking
Tara, njeb, Lilli, Quirky and mamaverdi:
If it were your genitals that were to be removed with little or no pain management or breast feeding, which would it be? If you've already answered this, please forgive me. I didn't go through all of the posts on this thread but I would appreciate if you would answer again.
Frank
Frank, this is just silly. I think both the conscious choice to FF for no good reason (i.e. adoption, breast cancer, a metabolic disorder or disease that means BF is contraindicated) and infant circumcision are human rights violations.
Circ is certainly way more painful than not BF done without anesthesia but both have lifelong health implications and can lead to death. 720 babies under 1 DIE in the US every year because they were not BF - I can post the link to the Journal of Pediatrics if you want. Then there's the increased lifelong risk of childhood leukemia, other cancers, Type I diabetes, asthma/allergies, obesity - all of these conditions can be life-threatening. I think most people would choose life over the risk of death, which is why babies should be BF if at all possible and not circed, because you never know which baby is going to suffer the fatal consequences of either FF or circ.
Both circ and FF (without necessity) are bad. I refuse to choose which is worse, because I don't believe there's a general rule that can be established that applies in all circumstances.
Women in this country aren't faced with the choice of having their own genitals *removed* vs. breastfeeding, although I did have my own vagina cut to get my son out (and then tore along the scar tissue while birthing my dd and have to have stitches, and later cautery). So it's a false dichotomy, and I refuse to choose.
And please let's not start an FGM vs. MGM debate. All unnecessary genital surgeries performed on unconsenting people for cultural reasons are equally wrong, no matter the degree of severity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamaverdi
I'd breastfeed, and have a portion of my genitals removed....like can happen in an episiotomy where no pain relief is given and portions of the clitoris as well as the bowel can be so badly damaged as to require surgery later, infection, or even death for mother or baby during future pregnancies. And don't think that most women get informed consent for episiotomy.
Although I will be the last person to minimize the harms of episiotomy, having undergone them myself, the complications you describe are not routine. Unlike infant circumcision, which invariably removes half of the erogenous tissue of the penis - on purpose. It's a 100% complication rate.
Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking
Tara, njeb, Lilli, Quirky and mamaverdi:
If it were your genitals that were to be removed with little or no pain management or breast feeding, which would it be? If you've already answered this, please forgive me. I didn't go through all of the posts on this thread but I would appreciate if you would answer again.
Frank
Breastfeed Frank. With the birth of my first son, I had an episiotomy(skin crawling as I write this), very painful(unmedicated), that wasn't properly sutured. For the next three years, everytime sex was initiated, it was very painful for me. This problem wasn't corrected until the scar line was recut during the birth of my second son(this time with pain relief) and sutured properly. I was under the impression that this was "normal". That that was just what happened after giving birth and having an episiotomy(painful sex)
Even after that experience, I would still bf and be cut(myself) before I would ff my baby. Having said that though, I put my childs bodily integrity before all else. Circumcision, to me, is the absolute worst thing you could do to a baby. So to answer the OP, ff before circ. And to answer you, cut myself before ff.
Originally Posted by Quirky
Both circ and FF (without necessity) are bad. I refuse to choose which is worse, because I don't believe there's a general rule that can be established that applies in all circumstances.
So it's a false dichotomy, and I refuse to choose.
thanks for stating it so succinctly, j. (but then i've thought you fabulous ever since the great native plant debate of 2002
We have been in this situation..DS was adopted at a very young age..His wonderful Birthparents left him intact (THANK YOU!!) but due to a pituitary tumor , I was unable to nurse him..the tumor would have probably killed me if I did not take the medicine.. It was physically impossible to nurse him...He was placed in foster care for three weeks..(Birthparent's decision)...The 53 year old foster mother didn't nurse him so he was already on formula when he arrived home....IF I had had the opportuniyt to chose between nursing him and cutting off part of his gentials, I wouldhave chosen the Formula any day...
BTW IF I could have had the chance in some magical world to breast feed him IF I myself was cut, then I would have done it in a flash...
I seem to be in the minority regarding Frank's question. I wonder if you who would get cut in order to BF are making any distinction between regular formula and homemade organic varieties... I ask b/c I really do.
For me, I'd keep the entire family whole b/c it is important for child that mom is able to be freely giving and genuinely happy. Mom's getting cut would definitely adversly affect baby.
But I do draw a line at the type of artificial feeding - relative to how harmful I see it. I would get cut before feeding standard poisionous formula. That's true even though I did supp my EBM with that poison crap at first. It tore me to pieces to put that bottle in his mouth. Once I was recovered enough to have the strength to feed him cleaner, organic and homemade milk, I did that - and kept pumping. And I'd choose that over getting cut, for the reasons mentioned above.
But even still it's a perceived risk vs perceived reward ratio. I think we all here would put baby's highest good first, as we interpret that. If we somehow were given this situation of figuring out the lesser of two (or least of several) evils, we'd all do what we thought best for the child, and we take issue with those we meet who do not think that way.
Somewhat pointless exercise, but interesting perspective about my priorities has come out. Hope this has made at least a little sense - I'm tired and have been interrupted 100 times while typing...
Originally Posted by Quirky
720 babies under 1 DIE in the US every year because they were not BF - I can post the link to the Journal of Pediatrics if you want.
I would love the link. (do I count? hehehe) I know lots of people who think ff is perfectly fine, but are hoorified that some of the things that *I* do are dangerous to my ds (extended bf'ing, co-sleeping, selective/delayed/no vaxes, not punishing- yes, I've been told how dangerous that is for him. lol).
Youur info seems like good info to have!!!
And don't think that most women get informed consent for episiotomy.
I sure didn't.
When I was to deliver my first son it was planned at the birthing center with my midwives. Totally natural planned birth. When I was laboring in the jacuzzi tub I suddenly had an abnormal amount of bleeding. I was taken to the hospital as a precaution the midwives was worried about my placenta and the baby, everything ended up being fine but I had to deliver at the hospital. The Dr. decided to cut me without my consent. I had never wanted an episiotomy. My midwife was there and was shocked because it all happened so fast, she said it was completely unnecessary.
Originally Posted by Deva33mommy
I would love the link. (do I count? hehehe) I know lots of people who think ff is perfectly fine, but are hoorified that some of the things that *I* do are dangerous to my ds (extended bf'ing, co-sleeping, selective/delayed/no vaxes, not punishing- yes, I've been told how dangerous that is for him. lol).
Youur info seems like good info to have!!!
Thanks
Quote:
Objective. Breastfed infants in the United States have lower rates of morbidity, especially from infectious disease, but there are few contemporary studies in the developed world of the effect of breastfeeding on postneonatal mortality. We evaluated the effect of breastfeeding on postneonatal mortality in United States using 1988 National Maternal and Infant Health Survey (NMIHS) data.
Methods. Nationally representative samples of 1204 infants who died between 28 days and 1 year from causes other than congenital anomaly or malignant tumor (cases of postneonatal death) and 7740 children who were still alive at 1 year (controls) were included. We calculated overall and cause-specific odds ratios for ever/never breastfeeding among all children, conducted race and birth weight-specific analyses, and looked for duration-response effects.
Results. Overall, children who were ever breastfed had 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-0.93) times the risk of never breastfed children for dying in the postneonatal period. Longer breastfeeding was associated with lower risk. Odds ratios by cause of death varied from 0.59 (95% CI: 0.38-0.94) for injuries to 0.84 (95% CI: 0.67-1.05) for sudden infant death syndrome.
Conclusions. Breastfeeding is associated with a reduction in risk for postneonatal death. This large data set allowed robust estimates and control of confounding, but the effects of breast milk and breastfeeding cannot be separated completely from other characteristics of the mother and child. Assuming causality, however, promoting breastfeeding has the potential to save or delay ~720 postneonatal deaths in the United States each year.
Originally Posted by momof3sweeties And don't think that most women get informed consent for episiotomy.
I sure didn't.
When I was to deliver my first son it was planned at the birthing center with my midwives. Totally natural planned birth. When I was laboring in the jacuzzi tub I suddenly had an abnormal amount of bleeding. I was taken to the hospital as a precaution the midwives was worried about my placenta and the baby, everything ended up being fine but I had to deliver at the hospital. The Dr. decided to cut me without my consent. I had never wanted an episiotomy. My midwife was there and was shocked because it all happened so fast, she said it was completely unnecessary.
I had in writing to not give me one! My first and 3rd babies both had 36.5cm heads--on the large side. Ds2 had a 33.5cm head (on the small side--he was 2 weeks early, ds1 & 3 were 40 weekers.) I wasn't cut and didn't tear w/ the 2 bigger ones and my sOB cut me unnecessarily w/ ds2.
: I still feel violated.
The worst part is, I was pushing before she got there and the nurse screamed at me to stop pushing when the baby started crowning and I got scared and tried not to push (and any woman who's had that happen to them knows how that feels!) So I waited for my doc to come and cut me for no reason! I should have pushed that baby out and either caught him mysef (like I did w/ ds1, w/ my wonderful first OB's help) or had dh catch him.
:
:
As for the question posed, I still won't answer it b/c I think it's dumb to try and choose between 2 horrible things when the choice will surely never really have to be made irl. But I will say that like a lot of mothers, I put my child's safty/well-being ahead of my own. Isn't that what mothers do?
Speaking of cutting, I didn't have an episiotomy with my son, but I did tear pretty bad, mainly because the OB on call wouldn't let me push squatting, and also because once his head was out she literally yanked him out of me. So much for gentle, eh? It was a natural birth, I didn't want any drugs and at the time I had no idea I'd tore. So when she looked at me and said, "You want drugs?" I thought she was talking about for the baby, so I told her no. So she proceded to stitch me without any painkiller. It was very painful and I let her get half done before asking the nurse "What the ((bleep)) is she doing!!?" I then got a shot of lidocaine (I think).
Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking
Tara, njeb, Lilli, Quirky and mamaverdi:
If it were your genitals that were to be removed with little or no pain management or breast feeding, which would it be? If you've already answered this, please forgive me. I didn't go through all of the posts on this thread but I would appreciate if you would answer again.
Frank
Like you noted before and I agreed, breastfeeding can be partially selfish; it is pleasurable physically and emotionally. Not circing your child has no selfish component.
I am having a hard time with the pronouns or lack thereof in your question. I guess you mean, would I get circumcised if that were required to be able to breastfeed my baby? Well, if it were just the clitoral hood, maybe. Is that the analogue to current circumcision styles? If it were everything on the outside, then probably not.
But, like I said before, for my original question, gun to my head, ridiculous fantasy world, I would choose breastfeeding. My experience is my husband, who is circumcised but terrible hearing and ear problems from being fed formula - he says he wishes for breastfed health more than he wishes he had a foreskin. Now you will say, Frank, that he doesn't know what he is missing, and that is true. But you know how I have mourned his circumcision, and he has too. But I still pick the lifetime of good health for my hypothetical family over the foreskin.
Now, having said all that, I would choose to advocate for not circing over bfing, b/c as someone pointed out, once they leave that kid intact, it is likely he will stay that way, whereas lots of women give up bfing quickly. Also, you know how much of an intactivist I am; when women come to this forum saying their husbands want to circ, my advice is tell them it is the foreskin or them, no compromise, no concern for the marriage, no nothing, so I don't think you get to cast me as some sort of a villain here. I do think you make a good point that it is easy to cause pain when it is not your own, and that may make people think. But remember this was all for discussion, and not for persecution.
I asked my dh which one he would choose. He said ff and keep his son intact. Now of course he has never been a bf'ing mom but he does have two beautiful bf'ed and intact (girl/boy) children. My dh was circed and ff'ed.
heck I would cut thier hand off before I gave them formula. definitely breastfeed. the health and brain benifits of breastmilk far exceed the benifits of a foreskin.
but I agree. i can't imagine having to make that choice. but some women have to fight for every inch of natrual parenting and this might be a choice thier dh would have them make. kinda we each get to choose one thing important to us. so I can see this being a real choice (although far fetched) for some women.
I'd never in a million years circ a child or FF. I'f I was unable to BF I'd either gather all of my lactating mama friends or be on the steps of a milk bank. At first I thought FF would be worse than circ b/c of all the restoration procedures, etc, but then I had a flashback to the baby I saw being strapped down. I also think about the stories I've heard about babies dying b/c they couldn't tolerate non-human milk. A foreskin and breastmilk are a baby boy's birthright. I don't think there's a lesser evil here.
Originally Posted by eightyferrettoes
My DH was circed and formula-fed. I grieve his circumcision every day, 36 years later, knowing that we shouldn't be struggling the way we do.
I never give his formula-fed status a second thought.
For me, the choice is so obvious.
Ditto!!! (Except it is 28 years later in the case of my dh). I also asked my dh (who was both circed and ff) if he could have been either breastfed or left intact which he'd choose... and he said he'd rather be left intact, no question.
I think choosing not to mutilate your newborn baby is hands down the most important new parenting decision you can make. IMO it makes the benefits of bf look minor in comparison. I don't know if I would have been able to fully understand the importance of not circing if I didn't have a son of my own. I'm not sure if I ever would have watched a circ video, found these boards, or taken up this cause if I had had a daughter. I probably wouldn't have emphasized with a dd how we all should have the right to genital integrity... but I'm sure I would have talked about how important it is to bf. Then maybe I would have ended up one day with a bf grandson who got circed. I find this potential scenario completely horrifying, and it makes me extremely thankful to have my boy
Intact and FF. In fact my son was left intact, but FF (DD was BF).
For me it comes down to the fact that circ is permanent in every possible way. If you FF you can do other things to boost your childs immunities. Are they perfect, no, but at least you have more options to do so. You can't do that with circ.
Well, I'm an intactivist as well as a lactivist. I'm still nursing my 3-year-old and strongly believe in child-led weaning.
All that said, I'd still choose leaving him intact over breastfeeding him. I see circumcision as genital mutilation (on boys and girls) and I could never knowingly consent to having my sweet son permanently mutilated.
There are drawbacks to being formula fed but they aren't AS severe as permanent mutilation. My DH is intact and was FF, and he'd tell you he'd choose being intact over being breastfed any day (and he is a HUGE supporter of breastfeeding).
Count me as one of those who really doesn't understand what is to be gained by posing this question. It always bothers me when people want to create a hierarchy of wrongs; too often it leads to petty arguing. I guess it's useful if it helps people define what is important to them--which I think has happened to some degree here-- but mosly I just cringe when I see questions like this.
FWIW, I would do everything I could to keep my baby healthy and to treat him or her respectfully. I cannot imagine a situation in which I would be forced to choose.
I don't have a problem with the question. I think it is just an interesting intellectual exercise, helps us think about our reasons for our positions. Of course there is no "right" answer, it's just to make you think.
I would choose intact. At least FF babies are FED.
Here's another perspective I thought of: on the one hand, circ'd babies are actively assaulted and harmed outright so maybe that is worse than passively being denied the benefits of BF. BUT otoh, parents who circ for "health reasons" do so because they really believe it is for the child's best interest, while those who can't be bothered to breastfeed make that choice knowing they are NOT doing the best for the child. So when viewed by the end results you could say the permanent loss of a body part is worse than potentially worse health, but when viewed by the intent of the parents it is`worse to choose to do something you KNOW is not good for the child than to do something your trusted doctors and family told you is really good for the child.
I breastfeed because it is a child's birthright. I don't believe I do it for any selfish reasons. There are benefits I get such as convenience and reduced breast cancer risk (but unfortunately NOT weight loss like everyone said would happen
) but I view those as side benefits and not reasons to bf in the first place. I would still bf even if it were more inconvenient, costly, painful for me and harder than ff. Because the child deserves it whether or not it is easy or beneficial for me.
But I would cut off my own breasts (and find another way to feed the babe) before I would cut off part of my baby's body.
I am a huge bfing advocate and so is my (intact) dh, but as he just said, ff doesn't involve mutilation so we would have to go with not circing and not bfing.
I wouldn't ff though. I would get fresh goat milk instead
The more I have thought about this question the more I realize there is no way I could watch my son being circed and since I'd never let my baby have a procedure like that done w/o me it just wouldn't happen. So I would have to ff and not circ, really I'd hope I had a very cool mama friend who would donate bm to me.
I would not cut my childrens hands off to breastfeed. I would not cut their clitoris. I would not cut their penis.
I am not a cutter. Knifes and babies don't mix.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Mothering Forum
16.5M posts
285.1K members
Since 1996
A forum community dedicated to all mothers and inclusive family living enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about nurturing, health, behavior, housing, adopting, care, classifieds, and more!