I semi-regularly post controversial things without stating my overall opinions on the topic. I like saying things like, “This is interesting” without specifying exactly what I find interesting or why. It is interesting that people often leap to conclusions about my positions on things. Last night as I was falling asleep I thought about the fact that I probably keep my mouth shut on some of my more extreme positions because I hate the fact that I already get snotty comments about the fact that I have strong opinions without fully expressing most of my strong opinions. That would be, in fact, why I believe that people are trying to shame someone into silence with the phrase “Don’t hold back, tell me how you really feel” and its close cousins.
So ok, you want to know some of my strong opinions? Fine. I’ll state some of them. If you flame me, act like an asshole, or just in generally are rude I will delete your comment without response. If you want to engage me in spirited debate that is fine, keeping in mind that I am leaving the country tomorrow. Alright, here we go…
I feel that circumcision is wrong. Elective cosmetic circumcision is disgusting, horrible, and despicable and I believe the parents who do this are making a terrible choice. Yeah, that’s a strong statement. In the context of religious circumcision my feelings are far more muddy. On one hand it is a deeply held belief for me that I should not judge other people’s religious beliefs regardless of how appropriate I find them. Yet in the case of circumcision the parent is making a religious choice for their child and that becomes far more difficult to me. I don’t believe that all Jewish parents are foul. I have a hard time figuring out exactly what I believe. Many of the Jewish parents I have spoken with have admitted that they felt terrible as they were doing it because of guilt at hurting their child, yet they felt that it was non-negotiable in order to pass on their religion/culture. The closest I can come to understanding this choice is comparing it to when I turned my sister into CPS. I felt bad; I cried; I believed it was something I had to do. Although I think that is projecting more negative feelings onto Jewish parents than is probably appropriate. I sincerely doubt most of them have anything like the feelings of guilt I had about turning my sister in.
So this is something I have very complicated feelings about. I first learned that there was controversy about circumcision when I was 18. I was working with Californians for Same Sex Marriage (a precursor to MECA) and one of the people I spent a lot of time with was a lovely older man named Don. I don’t remember exactly how we got on to the topic but he started talking to me about genital integrity. He was intact and told me about the extensive conversations he had over his lifetime with men who were circumcised. He said that universally they all seemed to have less sensation than he had. After a few hours of talking to him I decided that I wouldn’t ever do that to a child of mine. Fast forward a few years and I started hearing about the actual anti-circumcision movement. I looked into it fairly briefly because it’s not like I was on the fence. I watched several videos and almost lost the contents of my stomach. I cried. I flat don’t believe anyone who says, “Babies don’t feel pain” because those children screamed and flailed and contorted. It seemed to me that when the baby “quieted down quickly” it was because the child went into shock, not because they weren’t feeling pain. That is why I have such strong feelings about cosmetic elective circumcision–there is simply no reason to put your child through that for the hell of it.
That’s why it is so hard for me to feel ok about religious circumcision, yet I can’t really bring myself to denounce it the same way I do RIC (routine infant circumcision). I understand and agree with the premise that the two different circumstances should not be evaluated by the same metric. But man it’s hard. And there is the added bonus to complicate my feelings that I don’t want to feel this negatively about my friends. Mr. Not My Real Name engaged with me yesterday in an extremely respectful, heartfelt debate. I understand and believe that he is acting 100% within what he believes is best for his child. He’s a very good man who is smart, articulate, and who does his homework before picking an opinion. Who the fuck am I to judge his parenting choices? If one were to ask me to name a few people I know who I would hold up as examples of stellar parenting, he would make the short list. But he practices this thing I find so horrible! Well, yes. Maybe that decision shouldn’t be one of the ways I judge someone’s parenting.
Do you see why this is so complicated in my head? I use Mr. NMRN as an example because it would be too big of a pain in the ass to go through the list of people in my life who are Jewish and who do/would follow this course of action but the muddy feelings are true for all of them. And hell, I don’t judge Jews outside my circle any more harshly so really I just picked him as an example because it’s easiest for me to justify the strength of my conflicting feelings given that I have such strong respect for him in particular. Even if I did judge the rest of the parents in the religion much more harshly on this matter I don’t know that I would be able to bring myself to do it with him.
I don’t believe that circumcision should be made illegal because I believe 100% in the separation of church and state and religious circumcision is absolutely core to the Jewish faith. I have a much harder time believing that RIC should be legal, but you can’t pick and choose like that in passing laws. I do believe that if we are going to legislate female circumcision it should be across the board because that practice is also usually in context of a religion. I don’t believe that Judaism deserves more leniency than African faiths. I am really really grateful that I have no hand in deciding what laws exist in this country because I would not want to decide this issue.
Vaccination. I have done countless hours of research on vaccinations. I have looked at the crack pot sites (of which there are many–there are some batshit crazy anti-vax people) and I have spent a lot of time looking at pro-vax arguments. I have reached the conclusion that herd immunity is real and important. I have reached the conclusion that vaccinations played a big part in helping to eliminate diseases that were already on a sharp decline in occurrence. I believe that vaccines are not fully effective and should not be treated as if they are. People get sick with them.
I have not fully decided when my daughter “enters the herd” so to speak so we have not yet vaccinated. There are not good long-term safety studies about vaccinations and that bothers me. I dislike the fact that people are expected to simply vaccinate on a pre-approved schedule without looking at the specific needs of their child/family. Shanna does not need the full vaccination schedule and she certainly doesn’t need it on the AAPs schedule. That is a fine and reasonable schedule for people who expose their children to more risk (that is not a negative judgment–if you have family who travels to/from India your child is exposed to substantial risk for many VPD and that does *not* mean you should give up relationships with your family), but Shanna is exceptionally low risk. Luckily, I found a pediatrician (at KAISER! I was shocked!) who agrees with me and who was very reasonable about discussing timing on vaccinations for her. Eventually she will be fully vaccinated because we want to travel to third world nations but there has been enough demonstrated correlation between early vaccination and increased neurological disorders that I feel more comfortable waiting until she is older. I’m sure that I am going to get a bunch of demands to show the studies I have read and prove my side of this, but I’m not going to do that. I am not trying to convince anyone to share my opinion.
I believe in full term breastfeeding and even extended breastfeeding. Full term breastfeeding is until the age of two. In my opinion it is best for a child to receive the benefits of breastmilk for at least that long. I believe in child lead weaning to the extent that the mother is able to facilitate such. Do I think mothers who choose otherwise are terrible? Of course not. I believe there is very little support for full term breastfeeding in this country and it sucks. You have to basically swim upstream against public opinion and cultural norms to give your child the amount of nursing that is reasonable given our biology. I base my opinion on the numerous studies looking at our close mammalian relatives and their nursing habits. Babies naturally wean themselves somewhere between 2 1/2 and 7 years old. Will I be comfortable nursing a 7 year old? Well… maybe. That is where “to the extent that the mother is able to facilitate it” comes in. By that age my own feelings of squick are likely to be running high and that will be felt by the child so it is probably not a mutually beneficial relationship at that point. It’s complicated. I don’t believe there is a one-size-fits-all nursing time length. There is enough correlation (it’s very hard to prove causation) between fewer illnesses, higher IQ, and greater self-confidence for children who are breastfed till at least two that I feel it is worth doing despite the inconveniences and there are many.
Cloth diapers. Honestly it’s hard to determine whether cloth diapers are actually “better” than disposable. It depends on what you value the most. I’m uncomfortable putting that many gross chemicals up against my kid’s crotch so I use cloth. I wash my own because in the long run it will be cheaper. It’s not actually cheaper for one child to buy a full stash and wash your own (especially because I use rather expensive diapers) but my stash will be used on multiple children so eventually it will be much cheaper. I do feel terribly guilty about the water usage given that California is in a drought. I have done my best to have as efficient of a wash routine as possible.
Some people think that I am anti-stroller as an AP parent quirk. No, I just have a weird twitch about not wanting to deal with them. For some reason I have a strong negative reaction to having to push stuff. I don’t even like shopping carts much. I would rather carry 50-75 lbs in a backpack than push a cart. I have no idea where this came from. I know it is weird. As a result I’m pretty damn good at babywearing. 🙂
Uhm. I’m not sure if there is anything else I should rant about. I’m going to go play with my daughter now.
LIttle suprise here.
I find your views here and elsewhere to be outside the mainstream of our society, but I expect you will not construe that as an insult, and you know that not all of mine are terribly mainstream, either. At the same time, you have what I see as non-stupid reasons for your positions and you argue them well, even though many will disagree with you, including, often, me. I like that you can be close to people even though you disagree with them, even when the disagreement is pretty vehement, as long as nobody makes it into personal attacks. And you’re not one I see taking the personal attack path.
I will bring up, though, that despite your statement “I am really really grateful that I have no hand in deciding what laws exist in this country because I would not want to decide this issue.” that you _DO_ in fact have a hand in deciding the laws of your country/state/county/city/etc.; every time you vote, every time you contribute money or effort to a campaign for a candidate or a ballot measure, and even just every time you speak out. These acts do not occur in a vacuum, and I would encourage you to not pretend that they do.
Feeling that as much as reasonably practical it’s not right for me or anyone else to decide issues for others is one way of seeing where my extreme Minarchist bent comes from.
Re: LIttle suprise here.
I certainly don’t feel that it is an insult to state a simple fact. 🙂 I’m not quite *that* neurotic. 🙂
I still love and respect people who voted for Prop 8 too. I don’t agree with their decision and I feel extremely sad that they made the choice they made, but I still believe they are basically good people who are trying to do their best in the world.
I try really really hard to avoid personal attacks. I’m not always successful because things get heated. I’m better with people who are also good at avoiding them, such as yourself. 🙂
You are right that I shouldn’t play ostrich. I will point out that I have never voted for a candidate based on their vote for or against genital integrity nor have I contributed money to any campaign on that issue. But I am nevertheless voting for judges and congresspeople and such who have a hand in the decision. I think that it is so completely overwhelming to me to try and figure out where a candidate stands on every.single.issue that I pick a few per campaign and go with my opinion on just those issues. It would be impossible to really pick based on every single decision a candidate might make.
but my stash will be used on multiple children so eventually it will be much cheaper.
My family used the leftover cloth diapers as rags for years. They have lots of uses.
BTW my mom eventually came to the conclusion that cloth and camping was just too much. Dealing with soiled diapers many days old at the end of the camping trip was over the line.
That’s part of the reason I lean so heavily on the EC end of things. If I work hard at it, we use 1, maybe 2 diapers in a day. 🙂
Oh, and most of the diapers we use: http://swaddlebees.com/products/aio/aio2 are not very conducive to being used as rags.
However, I have friends who want to inherit them when we are done using them. 🙂
on the circumcision thing, yah it falls into the catagory of things you “just do” and most Jews, etc don’t really think about it (and will tend to have a knee jerk reaction in its support, its kind of like getting them to question the existance of the state of Israel, or in the case of muslims getting them to accept the states right to exist).
On other notes:
1) you can always get the foreskin back if you’re really determined. Takes a little time and determination but it can be done.
2) Not just jews of course, jews, muslims, etc. And then there are the groups that believe it should not be done in early childhood but rather as an initiation into manhood and wait till their like 12-14 to do it, and the whole community watches and if you make a noise its held against you the rest of your life.
As to the the sensetivity argument, every time I hear it it reminds me of the argument of why men shouldn’t be forced to wear condoms. Is the sensation decreased, possibly — especially if they aren’t wearing soft cotton underware that protects the penis from a days worth of sensation (men who bring back the foreskin claim sensation for them is heightened so its more a matter of the penis being exposed all day to sensations, or covered up. But then again decreased sensation results in longer errousals, worse for him better for me.
Did you seriously just equate genital mutilation with contraceptives?
You did NOT just say that!!
Male Circumcision doesn’t end sensation the way female genital mutilation does far from it, it reduces it slightly. It does not result in a life time of having sex be painful as female genital mutilation does…. and when men try to equate circumcision with female gential mutilation by CO-OPTING that terminoligy it pisses me off. SERIOUSLY, HOW DARE YOU try to equate the two.
Male circumcision is genital mutilation. Just because you approve of it does not change that fact.
Go read the article I posted yesterday.
And to every article that makes that argument I can find you the equal number of medical journal discussions as to the medical benefits of it. If its medically beneficial is it mutilation?
I mean was my body mutilated when they took out my gall bladder, YUPS it was irreversibly so. Not only are there scares by my digestion will NEVER be the same and I suffer all sorts of aches and pains that my cousin who also had her gall bladder out and I can compare for hours. Is that an argument not to do it? If yes we should all become Christian scientists
Its something thats hotly debated precisely because folks come at this emotionally, not logically. Folks get far more touchy about anything having to do with genitalia than other parts of the body.. same thing as herpes on the penis versus cold sores…
oh fuck, midterm in 1/2 hour
“Mutilation”
is a term that means destroying an _essential_ part of something or _radically_ cutting something up; the essentialness or radicalness of the thing being cut is at the crux of the meaning of this word. The word also carries a connotation of something horrible; it’s a “loaded” word and carries an opinion along with it. One could argue that the term is therefore not quite applicable to some of the degrees of circumcision under discussion, and in fact this is precisely the point around which part of this particular argument has been revolving.
Re: “Mutilation”
Mutilation need not involve an essential part, or even be radical, though that is certainly a part of the way it is defined.
Mutilate: to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts; to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.
I think when discussing this, we should also take into account that mutilation is performed with mostly negative intent, and is something generally “done to” someone at another’s initiation.
I think for some of this discussion, it would be better to make the distinction between mutilation and modification – which carries a more benign or even positive intent.
Kindly take your strawmen elsewhere. I did no such thing. I accurately and correctly used the term “genital mutilation” to describe a procedure wherein a part of the penis is cut off. I didn’t bring up female genital mutilation at all.
Your histrionics will not get you a free “get foot out of mouth” card. Did you, or did you not, just equate cutting off a piece of the penis with contraception?
I compared the reduction in sensation that it creates to the reduction of sensation that a condom creates… Actually I’m betting the reduction in sensation a condom creates is far greater but I have no idea how one could measure that as its all subjective.
Every tried putting a condom on one foot and having both feet tickled, the difference is HUGE.
And the major argument most men have for not wearing a condom is the difference in sensation. And it seems to be the same argument against circumcision, that it greatly reduces senation…
As to the health benefits doctors are still debating the difference between circumcised and uncircumcised. The same way they do about tonsils or no tonsils… do you call having your tonsils removed as throat mutilation?
Also, and this has always boggled me. The folks against circumsion will often get prince albert piercings… or tongue piercings
I mean…. how is THAT not mutilation if your going to use that terminology
coopting that terminology is like the Bush administration legally equating the guys who burn down empty still in construction multi million dollar homes that are reducing the size of natural forests near Seattle with the Terrorists who blow themselves up loading up their cloths with nails and and other mettle objects in order to create as much pain and suffering for the crowds of people they blow themselves up in…. as both being terrorism.
oh and wrap your brain around this, the same culture that abhors tattoos as body mutilation (and will not bury them in the same cemetery if they have any — part of why the Nazi’s used them) is the one the demands circumcisions
I think that by the logic of calling circumcision “mutilation”
that those other things would be as well, but I think the distinction that advocates of these other practices often point to is one of “informed consent”, these latter acts being performed on a consenting adult rather than an infant incapable of giving such consent. Or perhaps such acts don’t technically fall under the definition of “mutilation” specifically because they are consentual and therefore in the opinion of the consenter neither radical nor destroying something essential. Still, I make the argument that a Bris is neither radical nor destroying something essential even when done with only the consent of the parents, but that is a different argument than yours.
Also, to be precise, “terrorism” means the use of violent attacks with the aim of changing behavior out of fear/terror, rather than by exerting the force necessary to impose the change of behavior outright. (Terrorism is usually undertaken because of the lack of available force that would be necessary to impose the altered behavior outright.) So the use of this term for the act of burning down people’s property in order to get them to stop building and save the forests does in fact fit this definition. I’d grant that it’s not nearly as egregiously _evil_ as killing and maiming school childrent by the busload out of the blue with explosive vests packed with nails, but it is still precisely “terrorism”. Some terrorism is worse than others, and it’s even the case that not all evil things are terrorism. I just think it’s important to use such loaded words carefully and precisely.
Re: I think that by the logic of calling circumcision “mutilation”
*this*. *this* is why I love you. 🙂
Re: I think that by the logic of calling circumcision “mutilation”
He’s’ just so darn *reasonable* and clear.
I didn’t say that genital piercings are *not* mutilation. I said that changes like that to a person’s body should be made by the person.
so I can hold you to never subjecting your children any sort of surgery they don’t want, or emotionally coercing them into accepting it, because it should be up to them to freely choose it? Sort of like all kids should by definition be treated as christian scientists because they will almost always opt not to have anything painful?
Its not really a sustainable argument
Your assumption that children will opt not to have treatments, just because they are painful, is far too general. I recall begging for my mother to take me for a penicillin injection, despite knowing how painful they are, because I knew I would get well faster. Granted, the ear infection was pretty painful, so there was a lesser of evils thing involved. But, there was no emotional coercion applied or required on my mother’s part.
ok, your right I was too sweaping with that one, so lets say the kid has a cavety and doesn’t want the drilling cause it doesn’t hurt now, so you wait till its requries a root canal?
but you see my point
After consulting with Noah about a tactful response I would like to say: this is hyperbole and you know it.
We sort of see your point, but Michael actually hit the nail on the head here, so I’ll quote him: I think there’s a difference between treating an actual problem and lopping off body parts as “preventative medicine.”
There are specific health benefits to circumcision, and they are enormously overstated by most circumcision advocates. To be fair, the down-sides of circumcision are also generally overstated by its opponents, but overall it’s a very small choice, and not enormously clear which way is (slightly) better. Medically, it’s not enormously different from where having your tonsils taken out was awhile back. And people did that regularly for awhile, it didn’t make much difference, and now people rarely do.
We’re not saying “do nothing without the kid’s blessing.” We’re saying “treat the kid’s blessing as important, and only outweighed by important health concerns.” Circumcision isn’t, medically, a big important health concern.
I think there’s a difference between treating an actual problem and lopping off body parts as “preventative medicine.” I can prevent you from ever getting another sinus infection by removing your sinuses, that doesn’t mean it’s medically beneficial. Removing your gall bladder was done because your gall bladder was presumably infected and septic. Do you think we should remove all infants’ gall bladders because each of them might, at some point, be infected?
The differences between a condom and a circumcision are legion, but the main two points involve permanence and overall risk-benefit analysis.
A condom has two clear and tangible benefits: massively reducing the risk of unwanted pregnancy and massively reducing the risk of transmission of several infectious diseases, at least one of which is fatal. Condom use carries with it a disadvantage of moderately reduced sensation. The reduction in sensation from using a condom lasts as long as the condom is being worn, and ends immediately thereafter. Condom use has almost no risk of permanent damage to the genitals. Condom use is 100% consensual.
Circumcision has no clear, inarguable benefit. Removing the foreskin can be shown to reduce foreskin infection, just as removing any part of the body eliminates the possibility of further injuring that part. This reduction in infection can also be achieved by normal hygiene. Circumcision drastically reduces the sensation in the glans penis, due to nerve death and overexposure. This reduction in sensation is permanent; even with therapy to restretch skin over the glans, nerves do not regenerate. Circumcision carries with it a significant risk of permanent damage to the penis, including but not limited to painful erections, impotence, and thrombosis. Also, many circumcisions are performed on infant males incapable of consenting
Circumcision, in the case of Jews, DOES in fact have
one clear, inarguable benefit.
It indelibly connects us to our heritage, our people, and our God.
In light of that, it’s hard to assert that the occasional possible medical downsides that have been brought up in this discussion outweigh that benefit, at least for us.
YMMV.
Re: Circumcision, in the case of Jews, DOES in fact have
Ok, I want to ask you this: there are many many things that have changed over the centuries in Judaism. Why is it so important to you that this aspect not change?
I hope I phrased that politely. I tried to.
Re: Circumcision, in the case of Jews, DOES in fact have
You phrased it very politely, thank you, yes.
Some things change in Judaism because they become part of our history as they happen. For example, there is liturgy dealing with issues raised by the Spanish Inquisition, which obviously could never have been part of Jewish practice before that time.
More broadly, things sometimes change in Judaism because we encounter novel situations; should automobiles “rest” on the Sabbath as horses were given rest in previous times? There are sunrise and sunset prayers, but what do you do if you’re a Jew on the ISS in orbit which has a sunrise and sunset every 90 minutes?!?
But more to the point, some practices change because our collective cultural wisdom sees the importance of such a change. This is RARE, and a high hurdle, as it should be, because we by and large like our heritage, and it is ours, part of who we are and what holds us together across 5800 years and so much difficulty.
Ritual circumcision is an explicit directive of our culture, codified in the Bible, it is a practice that goes back through our ENTIRE history, and it is a pain and a sacrifice and a risk that we are willing to take in no small part specifically because it is not exactly trivial, in order to demonstrate a deeper commitment to our heritage and our people and our God than something more trivial (such as for example just drawing a single drop of blood from the foreskin) would be. So at this juncture, and given the current state of medical and world social opinion, it’s just not nearly convincing enough to get us to stop in large numbers.
Now, if it were someday found to be the only vector for some horrible painful debilitating and ultimately fatal new disease, we would likely change our practice darn quick, probably replacing it with some symbol of the current symbol, but since that’s not where we are, that’s not likely to happen in the current circumstances.
I hope that answers your question.
Re: Circumcision, in the case of Jews, DOES in fact have
It does. Thank you.
This answer demonstrates very clearly why I believe you deserve a great deal of respect for your decisions. Even though you have different criterion than me you have thought about them very seriously. I kind of wish I could say, “You’re just wrong!” But I don’t believe that you are. I don’t think that any of this is so cut and dried.
GRRR!! You didn’t make any of my confusion go away! (I hope you see that as the silliness it is intended to be.)
Re: Circumcision, in the case of Jews, DOES in fact have
Though, I do believe that in some particularly reform congregations, conversion may include letting of blood, as described rather than requiring circumcision in the adult male.
Re: Circumcision, in the case of Jews, DOES in fact have
Deciding for your infant children that they’re going to be indelibly marked as part of your religion isn’t something with which I’m going to agree. It isn’t like a baptism; there’s no backsies on circumcision if your son decides once he has functional cognitive and linguistic faculties that he doesn’t want to worship your God.
Actually I saw this TV show where they had a bunch of guys who had reversed their circumcisions (its skin, it stretches).
You cannot restore nerves once they are cut off.
I think the key here is the phrase “changes LIKE THAT”
Clearly she’s not talking about widely recognized medically important procedures, so your whole point here doesn’t really apply.
Histrionics aside, I have to agree about the loss of sensation issue…I challenge you to tell me that circumcised men don’t enjoy sexual sensation/pleasure. Further, I find the equating of the procedures in male and female circumcision/genital mutilation to be profoundly inaccurate. The male equivalent of the female procedure would be to cut off the penis and leave the foreskin intact.
If you go back and read the link posted yesterday
in the other discussion that spawned this topic, you’ll see that there is a range of practices performed on females and a range performed on males. Not all female practices cited are _as_ extensive as what you wrote, and the range of extensiveness of procedures performed on males as compared to those performed on females does in fact have some overlap.
Re: If you go back and read the link posted yesterday
I’ll give you that there are a range of practices.
I will openly admit that I’m not likely to have the time to read a 23 page article right now, so I’m not attempting to argue that point.
This angers me. Deeply.
I’m trying to stay out of most of these because I suspect I feel much more strongly about this than rightkindofme does.
I had a lover once who had horrible scarring from a botched circumcision. He had almost no sensation on the head at all. I never had the heart to tell him just how much of his discomfort was clearly caused by that.
parents make choices for their children
and sometimes they involve risk, and sometimes they go wrong.
But there’s nobody else to make those choices for them, and society as a whole has little choice but to give parents a degree of latitude to do so, or else we raise children in government-run baby factories and plastic bubbles.
So society draws the line on how much latitude there can be as best it can and suffers the downsides of that choice.
In this case, on the whole, and despite the tragedy you related, there is a purpose to this procedure that is being served by allowing parents to choose it, and society has some pretty reasonable reasons for doing so, some of which I have outlined in other posts.
Tragedies are a shame, and we’d like to eliminate all of them, but we have to weigh the costs of doing so and pick which ones we’re willing to live with in exchange for the opportunity to live life freely outside of perfect protective bubbles, because there’s the obvious downside to that approach as well.
I’ll make an analogy… I have a scar in my left eyebrow. I got it when I was 10 and fell off my bike. My mom allowed me to ride that bike that day, knowing that there was a chance I might fall off and crack my head open. Should all parents be banned from permitting their children from riding bikes?
Another example: a couple of years ago, a boy fell out of Drop Zone and plummeted to his death. He was at the amusement park with his parents’ permission and was properly allowed on the ride. Should we ban children from amusement parks?
So, circumcision, then. A boy was badly scarred, as you inform us. Yes, it happens every so often. I am sorry for what your old lover missed out on, I truly am. But it is a ritual that, at least in the case of Jews, has deep cultural and historical and religious significance. Should we ban this practice and forgo this cultural, historical, and religious benefit because of this risk? 5800 years of Jewish practice says that to us it is worth the risk even though as a people we have encountered it numerous times, to be sure. As a parent of a boy, I can personally say that it was worth the risk for me to take WITH MY OWN CHILD. Please feel free to choose differently if you become a parent of a male child, but please do not presume that the conclusions you reach in your risk/reward analysis of this subject are the only ones that are reasonable. They are not.
Re: parents make choices for their children
Part of what is so hard about this discussion is that when people do not share your religious beliefs it is hard to understand why this benefit is worth this risk.
I know that my analysis is not the only reasonable one. But I kind of wish it was.
Re: parents make choices for their children
Ah. I was replying to a particular comment that angered me deeply….I wasn’t referring to this discussion in general.
First off, I would like to say (as I hope I have before) that I have always respected and appreciated your opinions and perspectives on things, even when we have disagreed.
Regarding circumcision, it comes down to a few things for me.
1)I don’t believe that parents ‘own’ their children. This is maybe a difficult thing to get across correctly online. I think parents are essentially charged with the protection and guidance etc. of a fully separate, albeit dependent person.
2) I believe very very strongly in the importance of informed consent. I believe people vary in their ability to give informed consent. There is variation both in the human population and in an individual’s lifetime.
3) Given that variation, of course parents, doctors, teachers, etc. may at times need to make decisions for another person. I believe it is ethically imperative that these decisions be made in that person’s best interests, to the best of their ability.
4) Everything I have read has lead me to believe that circumcision has no tangible medical benefit for all, most, or even a statistically significant few individuals.
I believe studies that purport that it reduces susceptibility to HIV neglect to consider the added risk of exposure to contaminated sharps, potentially increased risky sexual activity, and the risks inherent in healing an open wound. Thus I think that efforts to promote circumcision (especially alone) as a method of HIV prevention are reprehensible.
The few cases of medical problems caused by a tight foreskin etc. are usually easier and faster to fix with much less drastic measures than removing healthy tissue
As has already been mentioned in this article, the idea that removing something with reduce infection in it is a truism
5)Circumcision has real risks. I already mentioned my one former lover who had substantial scarring, but in my anecdotal experience, every circumcised man I have been involved with has been *much* less sensitive than any of the intact men I have been with.
6)Thus, I believe that there is no medically reasonable rationale for circumcision. I believe that the ‘but he ought to look like Dad’ argument is disgusting, frightening, and selfish. A comparable example, in my opinion, would be desiring to amputate a child after losing one’s own finger, or even deaf parents cutting out part of an ear so that their child would be deaf too (granted, the reverse of that situation is more complicated).
(more in a second..my post was too long)
Re: parents make choices for their children
(second part)
7)There are very real and different risks for circumcision of infants. The foreskin is actually connected to the glans by nerves and blood vessels for the first part of a boy’s life (I’ve heard usually until 1-5 years). Infants, to my knowledge, cannot be anesthetized as adults can. So, with infant circumcision, you literally have to tear this skin free without anesthetic. I am willing to accept that some of my sources were biased and may have exaggerated the lack of anesthetic.
8) Regarding religious circumcision, I have some mixed feelings. On the one hand, I feel that each person should be able to make their own choices around religion. As such, if I ignore my revulsion towards mutilation/removal of healthy tissue/new health risks, I am still left with the issue of consent. Along those lines, I am also offended by infant baptism, because the infant cannot consent. Risks and pain aside, I think that religious circumcision is akin to giving an infant a religious tattoo, if laser removal didn’t exist. On the other hand…..I don’t think that means that children shouldn’t participate in religion at all, and I am undecided as to what point a person would be able to give their informed consent. I certainly don’t think consent magically appears at age 18, nor do I think people are equally able to consent to the same sorts of things.
9)Thus, I might be a *lot* more comfortable with religious circumcision if people waited in the least until the foreskin naturally separated from the glans, if people could use enough anesthetic, and if the child could consent in some meaningful way in the process. If there was a real tangible medical benefit to circumcision, and that benefit specifically depended on doing the procedure that young, then I would certainly relax some of my insistence on obtaining informed consent. I actually think that an adult choosing to undergo religious circumcision themselves is a beautiful thing.
When I was at UCSC I dated a Jewish guy for awhile that really wanted kids. We had heated debates about circumcision for quite some time (he was particularly insistent on the 8-day thing), until I realized that if was going to have kids with him, and happened to have a boy, that I would rather run away with the kid and be a single mother than allow that to happen to a child. I accept that the fact that that relationship turned abusive might have colored that decision, though I didn’t quite recognize it at the time. I do feel that strongly about it. If I were to vote on anti-circumcision legislation, I would probably vote to restrict it to either medically necessary cases or until the foreskin was no longer adhered.
Re: parents make choices for their children
These are all really well stated, good points. Thank you for voicing them.
Re: parents make choices for their children
All good points if we’re talking about your child. If we’re talking about mine or someone else’s, I feel that it crosses the line of interfering too much with parents’ rights in order to block something that statistically is just not horrific enough to interfere with given the strong religious and cultural importance some people such as myself place on it.
*hugs* I’m sorry that this is so upsetting to you. It is ok for you to express your opinions here. You are welcome here so long as you refrain from personal attacks and I don’t believe you would do that.
The only thing I’m really curious about is why you believe that religious viewpoints get a pass where non-religious ones don’t. (“I should not judge other people’s religious beliefs regardless of how appropriate I find them.”)
To be perfectly blunt about it, religious beliefs are those which, by definition, have no basis in fact. Why is the set of beliefs with the least explanation the one to which you give the most leeway?
To me, that there is no basis for a religious belief beyond “because I/God/this book say(s) so” should mean they are held up to more scrutiny than beliefs based on extrapolation from evidence.
Again, just curious. If this hits a nerve or isn’t something about whichyou’re comfortable talking, feel free to delete.
That was very tactfully put for you, so I’ll answer. 🙂
I believe in God. I have things that feel true to me that I can’t prove. Because I have these strong feelings I feel like I can’t judge the fact that other people have similar sorts of feelings that they believe come some from “somewhere” unexplainable.
Basically because I’m not an athiest.
I think religion can also be
the collective cultural wisdom of a people as to how to best go about living one’s life, simply couched in terms of something being more “holy” for easier digestion. Collective cultural wisdom can’t necessarily be derived logically and is often organic and heuristic and evolutionary in its nature, therefore difficult to point to specific evidence of exactly why something is done in such and such a way, yet may still be the better choice.
Re: I think religion can also be
I attended a lecture by one of the professors at a local seminary who also pointed out the “survival of the species” aspects of some of the early rules of the Hebrews. For instances, if you’re trying to promote the admonition to “be fruitful and multiply,” then outlawing sexual acts which aren’t expected to result in sperm being introduced to ovum (such as masturbation or M/M or F/F activities) makes some biological sense. Similarly, lack of good food preservation techniques might yield a whole series of rules around what types of foods you eat (e.g., pork and some seafood), or promote food preparation approaches that avoid things where cross-contamination of foods has a higher risk (keeping dairy and meats separate, for instance).
Re: I think religion can also be
*nod* I have long believed this about most of the Old Testament rules. They really did just make sense.
Re: I think religion can also be
Is “Allowing gay people to get married will destroy the fabric of our society, it’s an attack on the tradition of marriage” the kind of “collective cultural wisdom” that “can’t be derived logically” but is still “the better choice” Because if so, then I’ll pass, thanks.
If not, what is the difference?
I can find nothing in this post that I would call an extreme/fringe belief, or “controversial” in the sense that most people would strongly disagree with it, which is what you seemed to be implying in the pre-cut section of the post (though going back I now see you didn’t actually say so, you just said these were your “strong” beliefs). Everything here is very comfortably inside its overton window, nowhere near the edge.
Not practicing vaccination and being anti-circumcision are things that often offend people. Most of it isn’t that extreme. Those were the only two issues where I expected argument. And they are more extreme than you might think. People are pretty harsh in their beliefs.
Vaccination is one where people are often not willing to look at any shade of gray. If you are doing anything other than fully vaccinating on schedule you are from the devil.
You know what, I would actually prefer it if they thought I was from the devil. People assume you are stupid/ignorant if you make any other choices with regard to vaccines and that makes me very angry. Angry enough that someone has been banned from commenting on my journal again over it.
Huh. Well, I disagree with you on the vaccine opinion, but that’s not what you seem to be talking about. What I would find really off-putting is someone believing that vaccines are a plot to harm everyone, or someone not believing in the strong value of having everyone else vaccinated (or just not seeing it). Your position seems to accept all of the basic reality, and thus despite disagreement it does seem neither extreme nor offensive. It may be harmful, but then, I may be wrong.
We are not fully vaccinating because I believe some of the vaccines are stupid. So uhh that is a bit more on the extreme side.
Part of my reasoning for being unwilling to fully vaccinate is looking at risk level for specific diseases, both their severity and how common they are. There have been enough cases in history where vaccines have been pulled off the market because “Whoops… turns out that one was a problem” where I am unwilling to put my daughter through vaccines that seem less-than-necessary.
Right, that’s more or less what you described above, and what seems non-extremist (and reasonable) to me 🙂
you didn’t say you were anti vaccination, you said it was important for the herd, and as long as your child is not exposed to the heard you can hold off doing it.
Nothing particularly radical in that.
Ditto for what you said about circumcision. Jews tend to be a bit knee jerk about it because its not something they’ve ever sat down to question, but to my experience any jew who seriously thinks about circumcision tends to go… well yes, but odds are I’ll do it anyway cause its part of being jewish. (I have russian male jewish friends whose parents didn’t as a way of sparing them a boat load of antisemitism, and they sometimes in adulthood go and get it done.)
I agree with with cos
My personal understanding of Jewish practice in general is
to NEVER do ANYTHING regarding Judaism in a knee jerk, unconsidered way; to examine and question EVERYTHING (with the intent that this approach carry over into the rest of one’s life as well). To me, from my readings and teachings, the very essence of Judaism is to wrestle with its precepts, what they mean as well as how to attain them and in what manner to implement them, continuously and repeatedly, throughout one’s life. Of course nobody lives up to this standard even nearly perfectly or anywhere close to all the time, but I think the struggle and effort and attempt itself is supposed to be the point.
So in my opinion, the covenant of circumcision is supposed to be entered into with eyes open, pluses and minuses all considered, with the understanding that the point is not medical at all (and accepting that there even are some potential medical risks and downsides) but rather that the more important thing is a bonding of the child, and the parents, to their history and culture and people.
Re: My personal understanding of Jewish practice in general is
“the very essence of Judaism is to wrestle with its precepts, what they mean as well as how to attain them and in what manner to implement them, continuously and repeatedly, throughout one’s life. “
Yes. That.
Re: My personal understanding of Jewish practice in general is
pretty much, look at all of it, debate all of it, and do it anyway
Re: My personal understanding of Jewish practice in general is
pretty much, look at all of it, debate all of it, and do it anyway because G-d said so (naseh v’nishma). At least that is what you are SUPPOSED to do.
There are a surprising number of issues where this isn’t really done, and to my experience circumcision sort of falls into the category. While the pros and cons are debated they are rarely actually questioned to the point of not doing. As I said the only Jews I know who haven’t circumcised opted out because they knew their sons were going into the military where all men see each other naked, and Jews often got set up as cannon fodder by antisemitic commanding officers
Re: My personal understanding of Jewish practice in general is
Hmmm… my own personal experience is different. I see Judaism and Jewish culture as having changed and adapted thoughout history. I also hear the debates and the struggles going on now and see the changes and adaptations taking place today all around me, and often wonder which will stand the test of time.
Re: My personal understanding of Jewish practice in general is
Near as I can tell your experience of Judaism and Jewish culture only has minor overlap with Rebecca’s.
The amount of debate that has sprung up over these issues indicates that they are controversial. 🙂
I’m uncomfortable putting that many gross chemicals up against my kid’s crotch so I use cloth.
Um, what “many gross chemicals” are you talking about? The only thing actually touching the kid’s skin should be the inner layer of the diaper, which is probably a polymer blend material, not unlike many other materials in our Western life.
This is a heavily heavily biased site. That said, some of the information in it is accurate and it’s listing of the chemicals in disposable diapers is basically accurate: http://www.ecobaby.com/cloth.htm
my own positions
Circumcision. I think there is a middle position between religious circumcision and “elective cosmetic circumcision” that using that terminology does not allow for. I did not elect circumcision for my son because of cosmetics – I agreed to the procedure because my pediatricians advised that I do so for hygienic reasons. Do I realize now that I could/should have questioned that advice? Yes. Do I regret not having done so? Yes. But my son has told me I didn’t “break” it, and he assures me he doesn’t hold any resentment over my choice.
Vaccination. I believe most vaccinations are desirable. Some, possibly, are not. Following a timetable appropriate to exposure risk makes sense to me. I did not do all the research you have done about these decisions, and followed what my pediatricians told me was best. My children do not appear to have suffered from it, but in that I am prepared to accept that I may be blessed.
Full-term/extended breastfeeding. I am a strong proponent of breastfeeding, having managed to give both of my children that start, despite returning to work full-time when each of them was eight weeks old (my C-sections bought me an extra two weeks of disability, fortunately). I managed to continue breastfeeding my daughter until she was about ten months old, but I was still working at a hospital with a very supportive head of the nursery, who allowed me to use their breast pump during breaks. My son was born after I had changed jobs, and at around six months, his appetite outgrew my ability to express milk with a hand pump in the restroom at breaks. Would I have liked to continue breastfeeding each of them longer? Yes, I’d like to have gone for a full year – but it didn’t happen. I’m just glad for the start I was able to give them. How do I personally feel about others’ decisions to go twice as long or longer? Whatever works for them. I don’t think I, personally, would be comfortable continuing to nurse an earlier child once another infant came along.
Cloth diapers. I was a single working mother living far away from my family, supporting my children on a very limited income. They went to daycare at eight weeks, which meant using disposables. I support the choice you’ve made for your child(ren) – I just didn’t see it as an option for me.
Strollers. I never owned one. Not that I had anything against them. I preferred to hold my children.
I don’t see some of the differences between what you’ve written and what I’ve written as differences in positions as much as differences in circumstances. YOMV.
Re: my own positions
I do not hold parents of an earlier generation to the same level of responsibility for research that I hold parents of babies now. I didn’t say that any where in my post and I should have. Parents can only act on the best information they can get their hands on. When you were a parent there was very little information about many of these topics. There wasn’t the push for studies that there is now and even the studies that did exist were hard to find.
I do not fault you, nor my mother, nor any of the mothers of your generation for trying hard and doing the best you could do. I fault my brother for saying, “It was good enough for me so it is good enough for my son.” I don’t believe that my brother should rail against our mother and her terrible decision to have him circumcised.
One in 2500 children (who follow the full vaccination schedule) experiences “severe” problems from a vaccine resulting in hospitalization, permanent disability, or death. It is a high enough chance that I think trying to lower that risk by skipping some shots is worthwhile because it lowers that risk further.
My hat is off to you for being able to pump for that long. I honestly don’t know that I could do it. Pumping is hard and you were under even more stressful difficult circumstances than average. I don’t think (obviously I don’t know for sure yet) that I will have any problem with tandem nursing. I can love two kids, why not nurse them. (That is not a judgment on you.)
I do realize that I am in a very lucky position. I am able to follow my convictions because I have the means and the luxury of being picky in the ways that I am. I understand that not everyone has the same ability to decide based on thought exercises.
Oh, what the hell, let me be inflammatory…
If circumcision of an infant is “mutilation”, how would you label an _abortion_ that is undertaken solely at the election of the parents? What if it is a healthy fetus which is already far enough along to survive outside the womb (with a reasonable chance of good long term health), and the pregnancy is not endangering the health of the mother?
Because it seems to me that removal of some of the child’s penile foreskin is considerably less mutilating than its complete _death_, and such elective late term abortions were in fact legal in several parts of the world at least as of recently and for all I know may still be legal in those places.
( See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_term_abortion )
Which is not to say that I’m completely anti-abortion; I’m really really not. I’m just putting this out there as a rhetorical device to see if I can make a point.
Re: Oh, what the hell, let me be inflammatory…
I think late term abortion is wrong. If the child can survive outside the mother then the mother should be allowed to induce labor, but not deliberately kill the fetus. I’ll grant you that it may not be giving the child stellar chances, but the woman does have the right to decide that she no longer wants her body to be pregnant.
Re: Oh, what the hell, let me be inflammatory…
A right to induce labor but not kill the fetus; an interesting shading I hadn’t considered. Hmmm….
What standards of acceptable risk versus the mother’s elective should we as a society apply in such a situation? What odds of what level of harm are OK? To induce at 37 weeks for most any reason seems not too horrible, since the overwhelming preponderance of babies born at this age grow up just fine. But what about 32? 27? 22 weeks, where only a minority (though not as bad as 0%) survive at all?
OK, about to go off topic…
What do we do as a society as medical technology advances? In just the time since Roe v Wade, “viability” has moved from 28 weeks to 21. In 50 years, what if we have artificial wombs, or woman-to-woman fetal transplant, and the entire span of pregnancy becomes “viable” outside the womb of the (original) mother? Do we _then_ ban abortion entirely? This is something I’ve wondered for a long time. On the other hand, I’ve also wondered why abortion protesters don’t line up in front of clinics with adoption contracts in hand that offer to pay for the pregnant woman’s medical bills, room and board, rather than those confrontational signs and chants.
Re: Oh, what the hell, let me be inflammatory…
“Because objecting to things that are wrong is important but trying to prevent them is not.” Noah said that when I read your comment out loud and I think he is pretty right on the mark.
Back to the topic. 🙂
A lot of this is difficult for me to debate because I am not terribly thrilled about massive medical intervention. I don’t think that people should be kept alive against extraordinary odds. Much of my opinion on this topic is heavily colored by the fact that my brother was kept alive through the miracle of modern medicine and he spent the next nine years trying to kill himself because he was so fucking miserable until he finally succeeded.
How about if I say: I don’t think that you would like me very much if I explained in detail my personal opinion on using medical interventions. They involve a lot more people dying.
Re: Oh, what the hell, let me be inflammatory…
As the child of a parent who had insulin-dependent juvenile diabetes, but who is himself not thus afflicted and generally healthy, I know that I would not have even been conceived without some fairly non-trivial medical intervention (my father’s daily insulin shots), and as such, yes, my opinion about medical intervention is likely to vary from yours.
But to bring this back to the topic(s), I don’t consider circumcision to be all that “massive”, and I consider abortion to be pretty massive, at least form the fetus’ perspective, so I expect vastly different standards for when they should be allowed by the rest of society beyond the parents.
No flames from me
Circumcision I agree with you.
Vaccination, I have no problem with you setting your own schedule, so long as it gets done eventually. My favorite quote on the subject is from my sister in law: “I don’t know why my kids are always getting sick – we never had them vaccinated.” She was serious, too.
Paula gave up on breastfeeding Ian when he started using his teeth. However, it’s entirely up to you what you do with your tits. My favorite quote on this subject is from Firesign Theater: “I didn’t breast feed you for fifteen years for this.”
We used both cloth and disposable diapers. Dispos are good for traveling when you may not have access to laundry facilities. Pull ups are a good transition from diapers to regular clothes, as the child can put them on and take them off him or herself, but they provide protection against accidents. Cloth is traditional and comforting and useful for other stuff as well.
If you have two kids close together you may find yourself having to cope with a stroller, as they won’t both fit in a backpack. We had a double wide for a while…