 |
| https://www.facebook.com/BayAreaIntactivists |
(If you don't know why circumcision is cosmetic, unnecessary and a violation of human rights please look into intactivism and get educated about this important topic. Feel free to ask for links and additional information.)
He wasn't prepared or informed on this topic and had some really odd responses.
These included a "federal hair cutting law" retort (we'll come back to our hair cutting philosophy later) to which we tried to explain the removal of nerve endings and permanence of circumcision. He responded that "We don't know that much about hair." It gets worse: a Nazi reference, his approval of circumcising dogs, equating intactivism to a "god hates gays" movement and even saying "Children are like pets..."
Yes, a person advocating for civil liberties thinks children are pets.
I would like to make it very clear that children are humans and entitled to the same inherent rights. These rights should not be withheld due to arbitrary age and are not anyone's to refuse or allow. Being a parent does not make you an owner of a child, (it would be more accurate the other way!) Your ownership is of your own body and does not extend to the possession of another human being. Your rights end (religious, parental) where another person's body begins.
Our duty as parents is to provide, protect, educate and allow our children to become the best version of themselves. Children's rights mirror these values and include freedom from fear and harm and the freedom of choice over their own body.
It is not a parental right to choose elective and cosmetic procedures for children. It is the child's right to choose, especially when the procedure is permanent and body altering such as circumcision, ear piercing or tattoo. It is in our own parental philosophy to let the children choose when they want their hair cut. I recall a dispute with a lady informing me that sometimes you have to traumatize children as a part of childhood, like a haircut. Disagree. Choice, right to one's body and nurturing win in this home, personally we enjoy watching their hair growing in their natural patterns: mullet, curls and swirls.
Let's commend the German court that ruled that a child's right to physical integrity trumps freedom of religion and parent's rights and for the ban on circumcision that came from this ruling.
We wouldn't subject our children to personal, medical, religious or other procedures they did not choose or did not want. Of course there are loopholes and scenarios we could go batty over, but even in a medically necessary (emergency procedure most likely) I would validate my child's emotions and physically be supportive with them through it.
We also conclude that a child's right to be free of fear and harm win over the (improper) parental right to hit a child. (Since nowhere in society hitting another person is a right, and even a threat is considered criminal)
We need to rethink our roles as parents. There is nothing that bugs me more than a "Because I'm the Mom!" approach to parenting. Children are people, they have real feelings, real thoughts and inherent rights. We need to humanize our babies and never forget that they are not a possession but a person who we are given the honor of loving, protecting and teaching. We must respect their rights and teach them to respect others. If we nurtured every child this way the world would be such a better place.
Yes and no. A bit deeper discernment is necessary here. The way our (legal) world works, children are assumed to be basically incompetent to make decisions for themselves (with some modifications for teens). SOOO...either children belong to their parents, with government "protecting" them only in cases where the parents have extremely failed to do so, OR children basically belong to government, with parents taking care of them only as long as gov't likes how they do it. At the moment, the official line is that we have the first situation, but, in practice, all too often the second situation is what is actually going on--government feels it can step in if a family makes medical decisions it doesn't like for religious reasons, for example. I don't like circumcision, and my boys are intact, BUT I would never vote to ban it, simply because that gives government yet another place where they are interfering with family and religious decisions--and this is a slippery slope where the place to stop government is before they get started. If they can ban circumcision even for religious reasons, you can bet that religious exemptions for vaccinations will be the next to go, for example. Germany has very little legal respect for personal or religious freedom. They flat ban homeschooling, even for religious reasons, and have a habit of putting homeschooled kids in mental institutions for "school phobia".
ReplyDeleteAlso, keep in mind that one of the jobs of a discerning parent is to teach one's kids discernment. The child who does not want a haircut may still need one--and he may also actually want one, but is saying he doesn't 'cause he's afraid of the clippers or some such. We had a case last summer were our elder son was sure we were going to cut off ALL of his hair. Once I showed him that I was just going to mow his hair short (showed him by cutting hubs' hair), like cutting the grass, he was glad to get that hot hair off of his head.
Young children do have to be taught the difference between needs and wants. You can validate their desires, but that doesn't necessarily make it any sort of wise to have things go according to their desires, depending on the situation. For example, it doesn't matter what they think about riding in the carseat, it's the only way we roll.
Heather, I agree and disagree. This is our parental philosophy, thank you for your input. We aren't legislators, we're moms with a blog. I understand that parents are responsible for children but I will never teach my child that they basically belong to the government or that I own them or their body. When it comes to something like genital mutilation of 6 million infant boys a year, I do believe the government should step in and protect infant rights. Circumcision ISN'T a parental right. Looking forward to reading your blog since your more discerning than thou.
ReplyDeleteThank you for making it clear to the ACLU representative why their abhorrent decision to defend male genital mutilation has resulted in your refusal to donate to the organization. I have expressed similar feelings to those collecting donations for Amnesty International (which opposes female genital mutilation but ignores male genital mutilation) and Planned Parenthood (which promotes male circumcision in Africa as a form of STD prevention.
ReplyDeleteHeather, do you believe it is appropriate for the government to protect children from other forms of sexual and physical abuse that are less severe than genital mutilation? Do you believe that it is appropriate for government to protect girls from genital mutilation but not males or intersex children? Regardless of intent, infant circumcision is a violent, disfiguring act without medical necessity that permanently impacts the form and function of the penis.
Jonathon Conte
San Francisco