His Body, His Choice?

Things have been kind of boring around here lately (entirely my fault, I acknowledge... would never DREAM of blaming you!) so I thought that perhaps it's time to stir things up a bit, and how better to do that than with more circumcision talk!

Dalhousie University's Dr. Noni MacDonald published an editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal suggesting that circumcisions should be delayed until age 12. She says that since the biggest benefit to circumcision is the reduction of transmission in STDs (and even that's debatable), and infants and young boys don't gain any benefit from this, it should be delayed until they hit puberty so that they can be involved in the decision. You can read more about it here.

Truthfully, the likelihood of this becoming the norm is pretty low (like, subterranean) but it raises a good point about consent. Thoughts?

The Mommy Wars Strike Again

Yesterday I posted about Sandra Bullock's new baby, and how happy I am for her. It seemed yesterday that the entire world (or those who care about such things) was happy for her.

Today, I find out that there are those who have decided that they "dislike her character very much" or "have lost a lot of respect for her". Sheesh! That's quite a change! "What did she DO?" you might wonder.

She chose to circumcise her infant son.

I make no secret of the fact that I'm anti-circumcision. However, some of the comments I read on a blog (ironically titled "Peaceful Parenting") shocked me.

"James" said:

A complete failure of the responsibility to care for and protect the baby she adopted. Poor defenseless child. Scarred for life. But at least she enjoyed the party :( 

"James L" said:

Sandra Bullock said of getting her adopted son's penis ritually cut was, "the greatest moment I have ever had in my life"!? Sorry Sandra, whatever sympathies we might have had for your personal sorrows made public, or whatever happiness we might have shared from your triumphs are gone. You have proven yourself, with this action and this quote, proven yourself to be ignorant. Willfully ignorant. Very stupid and sad. 

"Katie" said:

Ugh, and I was just happy for her over the past few hours after learning she had adopted a son. She sounds just like Christina Aguilera with the whole super-fun penis party. Gag. 

Okay, seriously, what's done is done. She made her decision with the best information that she had. We don't know her reasoning, and while I doubt I'd agree with it anyway, I have NOT lost respect for her, nor do I find her disgusting. I am disappointed that she chose to publicize her decision so much, as we all know that when a celebrity does something and tells the world there are those who will follow for no other reason than that "Sandra did it."

However, ONE parenting decision, whether you or I or anyone else agrees with it or not, does NOT make a person a bad mother! She didn't decide to switch his formula with Jack Daniels. She didn't decide to ride with him in her lap instead of a car seat while going down the freeway (hello Britney!)

I have a lot of friends who circumcised their sons. Do I wish they hadn't? Truthfully, yes. Does it change my feelings about them as people, or my level of respect for them? Absolutely not.

Give it a rest, people. After everything the woman has been through in the past few months, the last thing she needs is all of you piling on top of her for a decision that she can't do anything about now. Focus your energy on things that you CAN change.

The Unkindest Cut? Massachusetts Government to Hear Argument Against Infant Circumcision

I've been debating all day whether or not to touch this topic. I honestly can't think of another one in the parenting jungle, even breast vs bottle or SAHM vs WOHM, that causes such heated, sometimes hateful discussions. I admit, too, that it is a topic that I feel very passionate about. I usually at least try to remain a little bit unbiased when I'm talking here, and I doubt that I will be able to this time. I may know the arguments from the other side, I just don't find them persuasive at all. That's probably putting it mildly, too.

However, I'm also trying to create awareness of parenting topics, especially ones in the news, and this one is out there. So, I will attempt to tone down the rhetoric, but I make no promises of success. I'm a big opponent of the Mommy Wars, as I've stated numerous times, but it's quite likely that I'll lose a reader or two over this one.

That being said, as I write this, I've made a decision: I will write this from my point of view, and if a reader disagrees with me, and wants to write a rebuttal, I will post it. Deal?

A group in the US is taking its fight for the banning of infant male circumcision to the Massachusetts legislature. On March 2nd, the group, Bill to End Male Genital Mutilation, will appear at the State House to plead their case.

Personally, I doubt they will get very far. Circumcision is ingrained fairly deeply in US culture: nationally around 60% of baby boys have the procedure done within a few days of their births. Although the American Academy of Pediatrics says that there is no medical reason for routine infant circumcision, they have remained fairly neutral and refrained from actually coming out against the practice. There is still a lot of misinformation about the "benefits" of circumcision, plus the age old "He'll want to look like Daddy" argument. I actually heard about this issue from someone who referred to it as "ugly peen", and this was from a 41-year-old man I usually respect.

The other issue is that the leaders of the group may in fact turn people off: especially the one quoted in the article who went so far as to have a "foreskin restoration" in his 20s. Although he has valid points, he will be easy to tear down as a fringe activist.

So while I doubt that the group will get more than a token hearing, I do agree with them. There is no sound medical reason for routine circumcision. (Did I say that already? It bears repeating.) There is no other healthy body part that is routinely removed after birth. Should we remove everyone's appendix immediately because someday they may get appendicitis? Remove all baby girls' breast tissue because they may someday get breast cancer? Perhaps if the baby has mom's nose they should be given a nose job immediately because it's "ugly"?

"Personal choice" is a phrase I hear tossed around a lot. This I agree with, but the "person" involved differs in my opinion. By performing infant circumcision, you remove the choice of the person involved. The baby cannot argue with you. This is not a parent making a lifesaving medical decision for their child: this is a parent deciding on permanent cosmetic surgery, and I simply don't think that's one of our rights as a parent.