Enedina Vance put a picture of her six-month-old daughter on Facebook with a pasted diamond stud on the baby’s dimple. The caption stated that she could do what she wants with her child, along with a few hashtags such as #HumanRights and #Intactivism.
As you might imagine, the picture ignited a fire on her Facebook. People, at first, thought she was serious. Piercing your child’s dimple is not a common thing. Outrage appeared immediately. Even with the hashtag #sarcasm, commenters called her a horrible mother, dumb and that she shouldn’t have more children. Within a week, the original post had 13,000 shares!
The Real Purpose of Her Post
While she wants to encourage people not to pierce their children, she hoped the picture would ignite the story about circumcising young boys. Vance stated, “It felt so outdated, so primitive. We, as a civilized society, should have grown past this, and I was shocked that cutting my infant’s genitals was even an option.”
Inactivists such as Vance believe that a child’s body is their own. Parents don’t have the right to alter or modify another person’s body for aesthetic purposes. It’s important to note that she said aesthetic purposes. Most inactivists agree that, in the case of emergencies, parents should make those decisions for their children.
As a mother of two boys, I faced this same decision. One of the statistics that stuck out to me was the large statistical difference between the United States and European countries.
According to the World Health Organization, the United States circumcises between 76 and 92 percent of males, including both hospital and doctor circumcisions. The rates have drastically dropped recently, changing the hospital rate to 58.3 percent. In comparison, Western European countries have circumcision rates of less than 20 percent.
It is obvious that Europeans have a different culture, but it did start the conversation. If those men are fine without circumcision, why are we circumcising on such a huge level?
Should Vance Post or Not?
I understand Vance’s purpose. I am a believer that circumcision is not a necessity, and none of my boys will have the procedure unless medically necessary. This decision surprised my entire family, leading to many conversations that infuriated my husband and me.
However, I do believe that Vance could have started the conversation in a less shocking matter. She did achieve her purpose. It opened up the door for more conversation about preserving the original design of a male’s body. Many young parents are making the decision against circumcision. Her post may have encouraged even more parents to go that way.
Do you think Vance’s post was appropriate? Let us know!