I’m going to open up a big can of worms here, one that gets me into as much trouble as my thoughts on weaning: mother-baby separation. Imagine for a moment, that you are at the grocery store with your six-month-old. She starts making hungry noises, and you look down and say reassuringly, “I’ll feed you in half an hour, as soon as we get home.” Will she smile and wait patiently for you to finish you shopping? Absolutely not! As far as your baby is concerned, either there is food now, or there is no food in the world. Right in the middle of the grocery store, famine has struck!
Babies and toddlers, up to the age of about 36 months, have little concept of duration of time. To them, there are only two basic times: now and never. Telling a young toddler that Mommy will be back in an hour, or at 5:00, is essentially the same thing as telling her that Mommy is gone forever, because she has no idea what those times mean.
Let me submit to you that the need for mother is as strong in a baby as the need for food, and that there is no substitute for a securely attached mother. When he’s tired, hurt, or upset, he needs his mother for comfort and security. True, he doesn’t need Mommy all the time, but when he does, he needs her now. If he scrapes his knee, or gets his feelings hurt, he can’t put his need on hold for two hours until Mommy is home, and the babysitter – or even Daddy – just won’t do as well as if Mommy was there.
So, yes, this is what I’m saying: A mother shouldn’t leave her baby for an extended amount of time until about the age of 36 months, when he has developed some concept of time. You’ll know this has begun to happen when he understands what “yesterday,” “tomorrow,” and “this afternoon” mean, and when your toddler voluntarily begins to spend more time playing away from you on his own accord.
Of course, if you know that your child always sleeps during certain times, you can leave her briefly with someone while she naps. If you do this, however, the babysitter should be someone she knows well, as there is no guarantee that she won’t choose this day to alter her schedule and wake up while you’re gone. This could be traumatic for her if the person is someone she casually knows, and doubly so if the babysitter is a stranger. It is important to make every effort to be available to her when she is awake and may need you.
I realize that not separating a baby from his mother for the first 36 months of life may be difficult. Living up to this presupposes that the family is financially secure without the mother’s paycheck, and, unfortunately, this is not a reality for some people. I would not argue that a mother who must work to support her family is doing less than her best for her children by working. However, I believe that many women return to work not out of necessity, but because they (or their spouses) want to maintain the two-income lifestyle to which they’ve become accustomed. These parents need to do a little soul-searching about what they really need and not sacrifice their child’s best interests.
If you must leave your baby for several hours a day, there are some things you can do to try and compensate for the separation. One of these, of course, is nursing until the child weans himself. Another is sharing sleep with your child until he decides he is ready for his own bed. If you have to spend 8 hours away from your baby, make an effort to spend the remaining 16 hours of each day in close physical contact. That extra effort will go a long way toward helping him feel secure an develop a healthy attachment with you.
In our family, we have found that many events that would require leaving our baby or toddler at home are the ones that we don’t particularly mind missing. We also have found that because our children have their needs attended to promptly, they are happy and secure, and we are able to take them to most social gatherings. I don’t mean to suggest that you’ll never encounter any problems, but generally, you’ll find that if you take care of your baby’s immediate needs by holding him, nursing him, and loving him, he’ll be a pleasure to have around, well into the toddler years and beyond.
George Wootan, M.D. is a board-certified family practitioner and medical associate of La Leche League International. He and his wife, Pat, are the parents of eleven children and the grandparents of twenty-one. Dr. Wootan has practiced medicine for 33 years with a focus on pediatric, family, and geriatric care and chronic illness. He speaks nationally on the subject of children’s health, healthy aging, nutrition, wellness and Functional Medicine.
Birth is big business in the United States today. And while we typically focus on the birthing experience of the human mammal, there are many things we can learn from normal birth of other mammals in the wild. I am especially enamored with elephant birth, and a few colleagues have a heart for giraffe mommas and their birth routines. The wise words Dr. Grantly Dick-Read so eloquently stated decades ago in Birth Without Fear, still hold true today: mammal birth plays out best when it is left alone -- when mother feels safe and secure and is not 'messed with' or monitored by strangers around her.
Unfortunately, death is also a part of life. We can never be fully certain of how things will end up - including our birthing days or those that belong to the animal mothers around us. This little calf may have already had problems inutero before sliding earthside, and Noel's fate may have been the same whether in the zoo (with vets and keepers all around her and drugs pumping through her veins) or in her natural birthing habitat in the wild. However, one thing seems to echo through repeated experiences (among mammals of all kinds - human included): sedatives and labor do not mix well.
In addition, as other birth advocates have pointed out, it may be true that 'caging' mammals - in zoos or in our modern day human lifestyle - has led to a reduction in the natural, normal movement necessary for healthy, uneventful birth. When an elephant, or giraffe (for example), cannot roam and run for miles and miles a day, there are physiological changes that may significantly impact birth form and function. When the human mammal no longer walks and runs and climbs and stretches and squats on a day to day basis, it is possible that our birthing days, too, are impacted.
Just something to think about...
Local ABC Houston (Channel 13) News Report on Noel's Birth and Death:
Houston Zoo employees are mourning the loss of a member of their extended animal family, after a giraffe died while giving birth.
Zoo officials reported the death of Noel, a 15-year-old Masai giraffe and her calf during the delivery of her calf Monday morning. A necropsy, an animal autopsy will be performed to determine the cause of death of Noel and her calf. Results of the necropsy may not be known for several weeks.
Noel began showing signs of labor at approximately 7am.
"Noel had been showing steady progress with the calf's head and one foot extending from the birth canal," said Houston Zoo Director of Veterinary Services Dr. Joe Flanagan. "But when we did not see the other foot emerge, we administered a mild sedative to calm Noel so that veterinarians and keepers could get closer and assist in the birth."
The calf emerged from the birth canal at approximately 9:30am with the assistance of the Houston Zoo's veterinary care team and keepers but was pronounced dead within a few minutes.
Despite the determined efforts of the care team and keepers, Noel passed away at approximately 11:30am.
"We are all grieving and devastated by the loss of Noel and her calf," said Flanagan. "The Houston Zoo has never before lost a giraffe mother and calf during labor."
Noel is survived by two calves, Neema, born in August 2007 and Miles, born in January 2009.
In Moroni 8:8 of The Book of Mormon, Christ, following his death and resurrection, speaks to the people of the western hemisphere, the Nephites and Lamanites. He says, "Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.ʺ
In the Doctrine and Covenants Section 74, a revelation received by the prophet Joseph Smith as an explanation of 1 Corinthians 7:14, explains this further:
1) ʺFor the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean, but now they are holy.
2) Now, in the days of the apostles, the law of circumcision was had among all the Jews who believed not the gospel of Christ.
3) And it came to pass that there arose a great contention among the people concerning the law of circumcision, for the unbelieving husband was desirous that his children should be circumcised and become subject to the law of Moses, which law was fulfilled.
4) And it came to pass that the children, being brought up in subjection to the law of Moses, gave heed to the traditions of their fathers and believed not the gospel of Christ, wherein they became unholy.
5) Wherefore, for this cause the apostle wrote unto the church, giving unto them a commandment, not of the Lord, but of himself, that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever; except the law of Moses [including circumcision] should be done away among them.
6) That their children might remain without circumcision; and that the tradition might be done away, which saith that little children are unholy; for it was had among the Jews;
7) But little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and this is what the scriptures mean."
The leaders of the Latter Day Saints church have made it clear that body modifications are not desirable. It is considered disrespectful to mark the body with piercing or tattoos, etc. If an adult piercing or modifying organs on his/her own body is considered disrespectful, how much more so would this apply to amputating and forever altering the body organs of another human child for non-medical reasons?
Occasionally, Mormons are hesitant to keep their sons intact because while they know that circumcision is not required, they believe leaders in the Church would speak out more strongly within a U.S. culture that continues to circumcise almost 50% of boys born nationwide today (18% on the West Coast). If it were, in fact, wrong to surgically amputate of the prepuce organ from their baby boy, many Mormon parents wonder why the Church wouldn't speak up. The Ensign article, "A Crisis, a Council, and Inspired Leadership," contains an excellent section about traditions addressing this:
“There is no doubt that Peter and the other Brethren knew that the law of Moses was fulfilled. Latter‐day revelation also makes it plain that the law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ [see above]...Obedience to the law of Moses was no longer a requirement for salvation since Jesus had completed his atonement.
In like manner today [regarding any conflict between traditional practices like circumcision and doctrine], there may be questions on which the doctrinal foundation is clear but on which tradition or custom are so strong that the Brethren are impressed not to take a firmer stand against them, trusting, as did Church leaders in New Testament times, that if the basic revealed principles are known, the Holy Ghost will eventually lead the adherents to forsake their social tradition, or academic popularity, or peer pressure, in favor of the word of God."
New Testament (Law of Christ)
Acts 15:1-35
Galatians 5:6
1 Corinthians 7:19
Galatians 6:15
Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants
3 Nephi 15:4-5
D&C 74
Moroni 8:8
"Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me."-Moroni 8:8
It may contain zero calories, no sugar, and provide a superficial energy boost to your brain, but diet soda drains calcium and phosphorous from your body, according to a preliminary study presented at a medical convention.
A study from the Walter Reed Army Medical Center reported that healthy women who drank diet cola excrete more calcium and phosphorous than non-cola drinkers.
The findings were presented by Dr. Noelle Larson in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society in June and focused only on diet soda. She focused on diet cola mainly because of observations that young women tend to drink large amounts of diet cola.
In the study, 20 healthy women were randomized to drink 24 ounces of water or diet cola on two different days. Their urine was collected repeatedly up to three hours later. Those who drank diet cola excreted more calcium and phosphorous than the control group. The mean calcium excretion three hours after drinking cola was 6.85 milligrams higher than after drinking water. Mean phosphorous excretion was 41 milligrams higher in the cola group than the control group, according to the abstract.
Calcium and phosphorus are both important nutrients that work together to build strong bones and teeth. Previous studies have reported that cola drinkers (both diet and regular soda) have lower bone mineral density and increased fracture rate compared to non-cola drinkers.
“Our study suggests that diet cola ingestion may result in a negative calcium balance acutely in young, otherwise healthy women,” wrote Larson and her colleagues in the abstract. “This may help explain the clinically observed decrease in [bone mineral density] and increased fracture rate in women who consume these drinks regularly.”
by Jean Robinson AIMS Journal, Winter 1999/2000, Vol 11 No 4 posted with permission
When Dr. Stuart Campbell says he is worried about the way ultrasound is being used on unborn children, we should listen. Hitherto he has been the great apologist and defender - oft quoted in the press as saying it has been used on millions of babies and there is no evidence of harm (a claim which AIMS has strongly disputed, of course.)
However, recently he and Dr. Platt, his co-editor of a specialist journal on ultrasound, were faced with a dilemma. [1] Two studies were submitted on early human embryos, and the most powerful forms of ultrasound - pulsed and colour Doppler - had been used. [2,3] These create intensities many times higher than normal scans. And, as we already know, when the probe is inserted into the vagina, as in this case, the ultrasound does not have to go through the wall of abdomen, which absorbs some of the energy. The journal had previously published studies where pulsed Doppler was used at 11-14 weeks gestation, but when it came down to 10 weeks it seems the editors became concerned.
The editors admit there is "a serious lack of experimental data on the effects on the fetus of colour and pulsed Doppler ultrasound when performed transvaginally in the first trimester." (In fact there is no adequate information on long term effects on the human embryo or fetus of ultrasound exposure via the mother's vagina or of exposure to colour and pulsed Doppler at any stage of pregnancy). And these were being used before 10 weeks gestation when the organs were not even formed. Please note that this was non-therapeutic research - there was no way it was going to benefit the mothers or babies concerned.
Was it ethical for the journal to publish the studies? They consulted their large international editorial board. Two members thought that such research should only be done if the woman was going to have an abortion. A third agreed, but said Doppler could be used if it was of proven clinical value.
But in that case, said the editors, how would doctors be able to find out if early studies could predict later problems in pregnancy? (Not that there is any early treatment for such problems, of course, even if they can be predicted, and the track record for benefits of later ultrasound is poor, as our readers know.)
The editors have therefore evolved an "ethical policy" for future publication. It includes "informed patient consent" - and the patient information sheet is to be submitted to the journal. May we suggest they actually publish the information so we can all see it? Since there is, at the moment no information on what happens to children exposed as tiny embryos to the most powerful forms of diagnostic ultrasound, it will be intriguing to see what women are to be told.
It is far from reassuring to see a piece in the same issue by Chervenak (one of the editorial board) and McCullough, both ultrasound experts, simply saying "Pregnant women should be assured that only appropriate power levels will be used in fetal Doppler ultrasound studies. They should also be informed that there are no documented risks to the fetus at such power levels, that the research may benefit her fetus or her." [4] Appropriate for what and for whom? As a veteran member of three research ethics committees, I don't know whether to be surprised at their ignorance or amazed at their effrontery.
The research must be also approved by an ethics committee, say the editors. But that is standard procedure in any reputable medical journal anyway. The two studies they published were approved by local ethics committees in Finland and Philadelphia, whose members now have egg on their faces. In future the information provided to the ethics committee on safety must also be submitted to the journal So how come they did not ask for all this information before publishing the two studies? We suggest they publish that information too, especially since the consumer interpretation of risk often differs from Professor Campbell's. [5]
Their future policy also includes insisting that the equipment must display the safety limits for the thermal index (TI) - how much the tissue may be heated - and the mechanical index (MI) - which refers to the force which can cause gas bubbles to be formed, stream and possibly damage tissue - and might show effects of radiation pressure. The embryo is submitted to a forward force every time a pulse passes through it. As medical physicist Dr. Frances Duck points out, diagnostic Doppler ultrasound causes higher exposure than normal scans, and can heat soft tissue. [4] (From many human and animal studies we know that raised temperatures can cause abnormalities.)
In fact the TI is already known to be inadequate, because it does not estimate what happens to the tissues near the transducer. When ultrasound equipment is used in the oesophogaus, the transducers have a cut-out mechanism if they become too warm. Vaginal probes do not.
Frances Duck had already warned that the revised standards allowed since by the FDA since the early 1990s do not prevent the sale of excessively powerful machines.[6] And now we don't even know how powerful they are. The ultrasound power is measured by the waves it creates in water. After a certain point the water becomes saturated so higher power is simply not measurable by this method.
The future ethical code of the journal also insists that exposure times must be based on the ALARA principle (As Low as Reasonably Achievable) and that exposure times must be given. We do not find this reassuring. A radiographer would use the least and shortest exposure to X-ray a fetus - but we don't X-ray the fetus at all unless it is absolutely necessary. Please note there was no unexposed control group in either study, and no plans are mentioned for follow up of the children.
What we find surprising is that neither study tells us how many of the babies were born alive, and in what condition.
48 women were studied in America; 60% of them had had ovulation induced. They had ultrasounds at 4-5 weeks, and then every two weeks until 13-14 weeks. Ten pregnancies miscarried before 13 weeks, having been involved in 27 studies, and the remaining 38 women had 145 examinations. We are told the surviving 38 pregnancies "progressed to term without any significant fetal complication or anomaly detected." For all we know the babies could be dead, but "normal." How odd that the editors did not require more detailed final data from such a meticulous study of the earliest fetal heartbeats. The authors show that the babies which miscarried were less likely to show early heart valve activity. Were these pregnancies destined to end, or were they the babies more vulnerable to ultrasound?
In the study from Ouolu, Finland, researchers looked at the development of the yolk sac in 16 women who had examinations at 5, 7, 8 and 10 weeks. They started with 20 but four were excluded because two pregnancies were outside the uterus, one was anembryonic and one was aneuploid. (We are not told at what stage the missing embryo or chromosome abnormality were detected.) The only information we get on outcome in the rest is "The course and the outcome of all pregnancies were uncomplicated." So - did they go to term, what were their Apgar scores, did they spend time in intensive care, were they born alive, are they still alive? After providing us with copious information about blood flow in yolk sacs, surely the authors could spare a sentence to tell us what happened to the babies, and it is surprising the journal did not require it.
There is no doubt that these studies can come up with interesting scientific information. The question is, what price will some mothers and babies be paying to provide it - and how shall we ever know, when it's only the powerless consumers who want to find out?
It is significant that one of the studies was done on women who had had fertility treatment. It is on this group that transvaginal probes and ultrasonic study of embryos began - these women were only too willing to agree to investigations they thought might help and give them early indication of pregnancy. Is it coincidence that outcome of such pregnancies - the most closely monitored of all - is so poor, with a high rate of both abnormalities and deaths?
References
[1] Campbell S, Platt L. The publishing of papers on first-trimester Doppler, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 1999: 14: 159-60
[2] Leiva M C et al. Fetal cardiac development and hemodynamics in the first trimester, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 1999; 14: 169-74
[3] Makikallio K et al. Yolk sac and umbilicoplacental hemodynamics during early human embryonic development, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 1999; 14: 175-9
[4] Chervenak F, McCullough L, Research on the fetus using Doppler ultrasound in the first trimester: guiding ethical considerations, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 1999; 14: 161
[6] Duck F, Is it safe to use diagnostic ultrasound during the first trimester?, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 13: 385-8
Beverley Lawrence Beech's "Ultrasound - weighing the propaganda against the facts" in AIMS Journal Vol 11 No 4
AIMS makes information and articles freely available on its website as a public service. They also provide advice and support to individual parents and professionals at no charge. If AIMS has helped you, you can help them to help others by joining or making a donation.
789 photos were used to make up our Thank You for Nursing in Public mosaic. Some photos are used multiple times for shading. Each photo is of a child nursing in a public setting that was sent to us by the child's mother. Several of the photos are included in the video below. Thank you for doing your part to bring awareness to the normal feeding of human babies.
I vividly recall the first time anyone thanked me for nursing my child and commended me for breastfeeding on cue - in the midst of a busy, bustling Washington D.C. street. My son was seven months old and exclusively breastfed. He'd had a busy day as we were participating in the Genital Integrity Week March and Demonstration going on at the White House and the U.S. Capital. Marilyn Milos, founder of the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers, was also in D.C. for the event, and while we'd never before met in person, or talked for that matter, she took the time to step aside from the group when she saw my son and I sit down to nurse mid-march. Her words were like sunshine for my soul.
I'd spent the first four months of my son's life mothering him solo as my husband was deployed overseas. I'd quit a professional career I loved to really be his mom. I was making attempts to heal from a very unwanted, traumatic birth experience, and to also mend physically from a horrific car accident that we were divinely blessed to live through. Brand new to the area, I knew very few people - no one, really. Yet within those seven months of challenges and upheaval, there was one constant: nursing my baby. It was something that also came with a rocky start, but not a life experience I was willing to fail at. Still, I'd never had anyone say "good job" up to that point.
And so, Marilyn's sweet words flowed over me - washing away the doubts and fears left behind from the last time someone questioned, "When are you going to start giving him real food?" Everything she said was everything I needed to keep going - to hold my (often tired) head up high, wrap my son back up in his Moby, and continue on marching - both that day, and in life.
Today my son is almost 2 years old. He still nurses on cue whenever, and wherever, he wishes. He truly is reaching his personal full potential - developmentally, intellectually, and in health. He and I owe a large part of our breastfeeding success to one wise woman who thanked us for nursing in public one afternoon, 17 months ago. Marilyn, I will never forget it.
Please, the next time you see a mom nursing her baby - thank her! Let her know you appreciate her wise, devoted mothering, and that her baby is blessed to be in her care. Don't be afraid to simply say, "Good job!" or hand her a little "Thank you for nursing in public" card with a smile. You never know how you may be impacting this momma's heart, and changing both her life, and her child's.
What we now call 'circumcision' was not performed in the same manner in antiquity. At that time it was a 'cutting of the blessing' - a very small slit made at the end of the penis to allow a few drops of blood to fall (or, actually, be sucked out by the mouth of the boy's father or a Rabbi).
"Cutting the Blessing" in antiquity was very different than today in modern U.S. culture where we amputate the entire prepuce organ. Hebrews and early Jews made this very small slit in the tip of the prepuce to allow the few drops of blood to be shed as the blood sacrifice of the covenant. The Hebrew words used for the practice are "namal" and "muwl". In Hebrew, namal means 'to clip' - like one would clip the ends of our fingernails. Muwl means 'to curtail, to blunt.' Neither of these words mean "to cut" "to amputate" "to remove" "to cut off," etc. There were very different words in Hebrew to represent 'the cutting off' or 'the removal of.' The difference was obviously clear to people at the time.
You could not possibly amputate the prepuce organ in antiquity and expect the child to live. Even today we deal with a 1-in-3 rate of complications associated with prepuce amputation and approximately 200 deaths per year (in the U.S. alone) due to circumcision surgery. At this time in early Hebrew culture, babies would have hemorrhaged if this organ were removed, and if they lived through the blood loss, they would have died of disease.
Mohel Rabbi, Yosef David Weisburg, sucks blood from an infant boy's namal site - metzitzah b'peh. The Jerusalem Post Magazine, Nov. 5, 1976
(Video far below: Rabbi describes why oral suction is performed)
There is an article on this subject in the works that covers the topic more in-depth (and why Baby Jesus was always depicted in art in what we would see as an intact fashion) that will be published on DrMomma.org. Jesus was, of course, born to Jewish parents and would have been subject to the 'namal' on his 8th day of life. Again, this means a tiny slit would have been made in the end of his prepuce to allow for the shedding drops of blood as a part of the covenant his parents had with YHVH [Yahweh]. But if we (with our modern Western eyes) pour over these paintings of a naked baby Jesus, we would think that he was intact. Why? Because the prepuce was not removed! It was not amputated. It was never 'cut off.' [For several images and more details see: Circumcision in Antiquity]
Ancient peoples never dreamed of doing away with an organ that was so useful, so important. The prepuce was regarded with such honor that it was thee organ seen as being most GOD-LIKE. Hence the reason it was the organ 'slit' for the blood letting as a sign that YHVH is the one "I" am trusting in -- not my own 'God-like' member. [If you are not familiar with all the many purposes of the prepuce organ, find highlights here: Functions of the Foreskin.]
When Jews in antiquity wished to exercise in the gymnasium (which was often done in the nude) they had to appear intact. Greeks only allowed intact men to participate in activities there. So the prepuce was pulled down over the glans (head) of the penis, before going in. There were also little devices made to cover the scar from the slit in the prepuce end so that no one would be the wiser. None of this would have been possible if the entire prepuce were removed (later in history more of the prepuce was cut in an attempt to discourage Jewish men from appearing intact).
'Circumcision' (complete prepuce and frenulum amputation) as we know it today began in the United States in an effort to curtail masturbation among boys and sexual exploits of our soldiers traveling overseas. Kellogg and Graham -- two of the big proponents of the 'new circumcision' methods, knew that if you amputated the entire prepuce organ, it would remove a great deal of a man's normal sexuality and forever change his sexual experience (and greatly reduce pleasure). Somehow over the decades their technique continued, but parents who choose to do this to their sons are grossly unaware of where this prepuce amputation originated, or why.
Prepuce amputation (circumcision) of infants is NOT recommended by ANY medical or health organization in the entire world.
Today, many Jews are opting for a Brit Shalom instead of amputating the prepuce of their newborn.
Find more on this subject, with videos from other Jewish pediatricians, mothers, and fathers at the links under Judaism & Circumcision Resources.
For a look into the absence of circumcision within Christianity (circumcision was always banned/forbidden or discouraged among Christians and the early Christian church, as well as the Catholic Church today) see Christianity & Circumcision Resources.
Genital cutting of the penis was being done before, and outside of, Judaism in history. A fairly detailed account of this can be found in the book, A Mind of Its Own: A Cultural History of the Penis, and in these four excellent books that specifically cover genital cutting in Judaism and other religions throughout antiquity:
Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon is the Jewish filmmaker (with an Orthodox Rabbi father) of the highly informative documentary, CUT: Slicing Through the Myths of Circumcision. (Watch/Buy Here) After spending years researching this topic and studying with some of the ‘experts’ in the fields of human sexuality, human health, religion, history, and genital cutting, he concluded, “Circumcision was a cure in search of a disease. When you look through history, you see that whatever the scary disease of the generation was, that was the one that circumcision would help prevent. So in the early 20th century it was syphilis, a scary disease that there was no cure for then. Later, it was cancer. Then UTIs, and now HIV.” As a Jewish man, Ungar-Sargon chose to keep his son intact, as many other Jews have chosen as well, opting instead for a Brit Shalom ceremony.
Male circumcision as we know it, and female circumcision in the United States actually share a VERY similar history. All the myths we now toss around concerning MGM, we once held about FGM. In addition, the male and female prepuce organ (nicknamed 'foreskin' or 'clitoral hood') are homologous and analogous organs. The article on this page is on an unrelated subject (hypospadias) but there is a paragraph that highlights the development of this organ and we can see how closely one-and-the same they are for all human beings regardless of sex.
I wholeheartedly agree with what others (including Ungar-Sargon) have said — genital cutting and the amputation of a healthy, functioning body organ from a non-consenting human being is a severe violation of human rights. If we did such a thing to a dog, we would be charged with animal abuse. And what we do to babies due to our own ignorance is certainly more criminal than that. If we amputated the prepuce from infant girls, it would be a federal violation. In fact, if we removed any limb or organ from a non-consenting person without medical need, it would be considered malpractice and abuse. It is even a federal offense to amputate the prepuce from a corpse! Surely the bodies of our newborn boys are more valuable than this.
We have banned all forms of genital cutting of baby girls in the United States since 1996 with our FGM Bill. This includes any genital cutting done for religious reasons on a non-consenting person. Don't baby boys deserve the same protection? This is what the MGM Bill would do. Some propose that MGM is already illegal and covered by law, if we recognize the way that the constitution and FGM Bill are written - i.e. we cannot discriminate the protection of minors from genital mutilation on the basis of sex. Coias does an excellent job highlighting the points on this subject in her article, Circumcision Already Illegal?
There are many reasons that a large percentage of the developed world today has a ban on ALL forms of genital mutilation on non-consenting persons - no matter the reason, religious or other. No human being is less valuable, or less deserving of basic human rights, simply because they were born with a larger prepuce organ.
Verses specifically for Christians to consider:
"Behold, I, Paul, tell you that if you be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to you." – Gal 5:2
"And even those who advocate circumcision don’t really keep the whole law. They only want you to be circumcised so they can brag about it and claim you as their disciples." – Gal 6:13
"For there are many who rebel against right teaching; they engage in useless talk and deceive people. This is especially true of those who insist on circumcision for salvation. They must be silenced. By their wrong teaching, they have already turned whole families away from the truth. Such teachers only want your money" – Titus 1:10-11
"Watch out for those wicked men – dangerous dogs, I call them – who say you must be circumcised. Beware of the evil doers. Beware of the mutilation. For it isn’t the cutting of our bodies that makes us children of God; it is worshiping him with our spirits." – Phil 3:2-3
"And I testify again to every male who receives circumcision, that he is in debt to keep the whole Law. You who do so have been severed from Christ...you have fallen from grace." - Gal 5:3
"As God has called each man, in this manner let him walk. And thus I command in all the churches. Was any man called in the circumcision [Old Covenant]? Let him not try to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in the uncircumcision [New Covenant in Christ]? Let him not be circumcised! Circumcision is nothing. And uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God. Let each man remain in that condition in which he was called." - 1 Cor. 7:17
"And some men came and were teaching the brethren, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.' But Paul and Barnabas together had great dissension and disputing with these men. . . Then Peter stood up and said to them '...Why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" - Acts 15:1-2, 7, 10
"But if I still proclaim circumcision. . . then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished." - Gal 5:11
"I wish that those who are pushing you to do so would mutilate themselves!" - Gal 5:12
What this Rabbi said seemed appropriate to quote here as well (though not a Bible verse): "There is no reason for tying [genital cutting] to a humanistic Jewish birth celebration. Despite its historic importance, it is simply inappropriate in the same way that female segregation is inappropriate." – Rabbi Sherwin Wine
One reason the early Christian church (and many churches around the world today) banned genital cutting (and removed members who participated in such things) is because to offer a blood sacrifice to God was demonstrating that you did not believe in your salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Christians never did such things to their newborn baby boys until the mid 1900s in the United States when everyone started to believe Kellogg and Graham -- that amputating the most sensitive part of the penis would reduce masturbation in boys, and curtail promiscuity among men... It didn't work! But we SURE did try...
Rabbi explains metzitzah b'peh (oral suction during circumcision)
We do not condone any form of genital cutting on healthy children, but include this video for an explanation from someone within ultra-Orthodox Judaism. Learn more at the Intact Jewish Network or this resource page by/for Jewish families.
I was recently passed Hannah Rodriguez' post, Lone Lactivist, for possible inclusion on DrMomma.org. Her experience, as the sole, exclusive breastfeeding mother known amidst her South Texas community, forced me to pause and reflect on the various ways that lactivism is played out among us. It also shook my own stereotype of a 'lactivist' ever so slightly when Rodriguez bravely stated that she does not choose to nurse in public, but instead, fosters positive change in other influential ways.
You see, I've long been one to believe that human babies have the basic human right to human milk - wherever, whenever they need it. And not only this, but that they have the right to quench their thirst when parched, and satisfy their need for comfort, all at mom's breast, and anytime it is needed. This, after all, as carry mammals, is how they are designed. So to cover up, or hide behind closed doors, always seemed to imply shame in something that is actually natural, normal, and an activity for anywhere, anytime. My mission (among others): Abolish nipplephobia by extinguishing the taboo that exists in using breasts for their intended purpose.
But in Rodriguez' world, (where the color and consistency of a normally fed baby's poop is not even recognized!), she has cautiously taken steps in breaking down the foreign land of breastfeeding for others around her, while at the same time standing up for the rights of her own daughter to receive the milk made specifically according to her needs. To do this all amidst a culture that does not support and encourage, with open arms, the breastfeeding relationship, is a difficult one indeed. It is tough to gently mother our little ones when we always have to run home, or dash to the car, leave an appointment, exit the store, or hide in a dirty bathroom stall to nurse our children. And babies cannot physically wait to be mothered.
As Veronika Sophia Robinson writes in her exceptional book,The Drinks Are On Me, "Our babies are genetically programmed to expect to receive mother's milk around the clock. Their tiny bodies expect to have the nurturing arms of mother around them all the time. The reason human milk is thinner than the milk of other mammals is because nature designed it this way so that our babies drink regularly and often. This is vital for optimal brain development of higher species of animals. Nature doesn't want us separated from our babies..." Quite simply, the manner in which the human brain develops during the first few vital years of life is intrinsically centered around the composition and quality of human milk, and the method of delivery.
Babies were born to breastfeed. To be close to mom's heart and her regulatory body. To devour not only her milk, but her comfort, and a euphoria of love hormones. When this is denied to babies, their whole system begins to break down, as we clearly see throughout nations in turmoil as a result of low breastfeeding rates (as well as our own detached society). In Lone Lactivist, Rodriguez points out that this lack of breastfeeding is commonly correlated with lower socio-economic status and lack of education. But this should not be the case - to nurse our babies is free, is normal, is good. It should not just be those infants born to mothers of higher incomes and advanced education who receive exclusive human milk. All babies deserve breastmilk. And all mothers deserve to be supported in their mothering, and breastfeeding, endeavors.
So why is this the case?
I'd venture to guess that one reason is mothers with lower incomes are often working themselves (sometimes as the sole provider) and the United States has a ubiquitous unsupportive manner of treating breastfeeding mothers. Not only do we not allow mothers adequate time off from work after the birth of a baby (as is the case in many other Western nations where women receive at least 1 year to be with their baby) but we also do not support normal mothering within the workplace.
When was the last time you saw a new mom return to work, baby in tow, able to nurse at the office keyboard? When was the last time you saw a new mother slinging her baby behind the cash register at McDonalds? Nursing in an Ergo as she checked you out at WalMart? When did you last see your boss smile lovingly as a new mom stepped aside to change her 8 week old, and then return, contented baby by her breast? Moms who must work have fewer options when it comes to baby-friendly parenting, and I'd suggest that the stigma around nursing in public impacts them most dramatically.
One of the reasons women without education elect to not nurse their babies is because they do not fully comprehend the detriments of denying human milk to human babies, but also because it is very difficult to do something when no one else around you is 'doing it.' For these women, and their babies, it is absolutely essential that we normalize breastfeeding, abolish lactiphobia (a fear of breastfeeding) and nipplephobia (a fear of - gasp! - seeing the human nipple doing its intended job). I am doing my part, in my own lactivist way, by nursing my child anywhere, anytime, anyplace he needs to nurse around Washington D.C., and 1,800 miles away, another lactivist mother, Hannah Rodriguez, in her own unique way, is doing just the same!
Kudos to all of you for the small steps we take together in paving the way for the return to a mother/baby-friendly world for the next generation. Until then, remember, each onematters!
For additional information, find books, websites, and articles linked at Breastfeeding Resources.
Danelle Frisbie, Ph.D., M.A., holds degrees in clinical psychology, women's & gender studies, religion, family, health & development and human sexuality. After teaching and conducting research at the collegiate level for 10 years, she left full-time academia to pursue another passion - mothering. Frisbie founded the non-profit organization, peaceful parenting, and currently assists in running DrMomma.org.
Welcome to the July 2010 Carnival of Nursing in Public
This post was written for inclusion in the Carnival of Nursing in Public hosted by Dionna and Paige at NursingFreedom.org. All week, July 5-9, we will be featuring articles and posts about nursing in public ("NIP"). See the bottom of this post for more information.
~~~~
by Hannah Rodriguez
I live in a land where breastfeeding is foreign and atypical.
While many women across North America may often feel this way, I dare to say that my situation is different.
Although there are no statistics on breastfeeding by county, I can share the statistics of my life experience. I live in Hidalgo County, Texas. It is an area that is characterized by low education and high poverty - two factors that greatly affect the rate of breastfeeding, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and numerous other statistics.
Of my husband’s entire extended family (my family is 800 miles away), which consists of roughly 15 mothers, I am the only mom who has breastfed exclusively at any age. When I first took my daughter to the church nursery, the volunteer exclaimed, “Oh! It’s been a long time since we had a breastfed baby!” And several weeks later, after my daughter's first nursery poo, a volunteer came up and whispered into my ear with great concern, “It was a little runny and yellow - maybe she has a tummy ache.” Needless to say, declaring that there is a lack of breastfeeding awareness would be a severe understatement.
Everywhere I go, the fact that I have breastfed at all brings astonishment and surprise, much less the fact that I have done it exclusively for six months now with my first child. My husband is proud and supportive of our breastfeeding relationship, but understandably still retains much of the stigma of the “breastfeeding is foreign,” and “breasts are sexual” culture around us.
So, when the time comes to feed Bethany, do I nurse in public? No, I do not. A good day for Beth and I is when she can eat in the same room as family and friends, covered, instead of going off to a bathroom or other solitary room. Undoubtedly many (or most) readers will think that I am weak and foolish for choosing to submit to my husband’s wishes and remain covered, but I choosing to live my lactivist life in other ways. Already I have influenced my sister-in-law so that she has been able to successfully breastfeed her second child, and I often receive serious inquiries about breastfeeding. and encourage nursing relationships with my own positive testimony.
So, from a lone lactivist in south Texas, I salute you moms who nurse in public. Perhaps one day, maybe by my second child, or when Bethany is older, I, too, will join the ranks of you warriors. For now, each day of breastfeeding is another day that I shape the subculture around me, making breastfeeding a little less foreign, and a little more normal.
Hannah Rodriguez is a former educator living in South Texas, and stay-at-home mom with her six month old daughter, Bethany.
Visit this page for additional linked resources (books, websites, articles) on breastfeeding.
Please join us all week, July 5-9, as we celebrate and support breastfeeding mothers. And visit NursingFreedom.org any time to connect with other breastfeeding supporters, learn more about your legal right to nurse in public, and read (and contribute!) articles about breastfeeding and N.I.P.
Do you support breastfeeding in public? Grab this badge for your blog or website to show your support and encourage others to educate themselves about the benefits of breastfeeding and the rights of breastfeeding mothers and children.
This post is just one of many being featured as part of the Carnival of Nursing in Public. Please visit our other writers each day of the Carnival. Click on the links below to see each day’s posts - new articles will be posted on the following days:
A bright moon in the dark
Crescent, half, full
Growing brighter and brighter
Patterned across the months
Early in the dusk it slowly rises
A soft glow, mild sheen
It rises over mountain, an ocean
Glowing brightly in the dark expanse
After an eternity it begins to wane
Descending in its final crescendo
Sinking into the horizon of water
The sun follows and peaks its head
Dawning new life
The flowers open to greet its wonder
It emerges - magnificent, whole
Bringing forth a dew day
As the darkness grows lighter and lighter
Revive sweet flowers and greet your sun!
As it drinks in liquid gold.
Sung to the tune of John Mayer's song, Daughters
Lyrics by Jennifer Coias and Danelle Frisbie
I know a boy,
He puts the color inside my world
But he's not all himself,
There's something he wants, something better than wealth
And I've done all I can
To stand on his steps with my heart in my hands
Now I'm starting to see
Maybe it's got nothing to do with me
Mothers, be good to your sons
Sons will love like you do
Sons become lovers who turn into fathers
So fathers, be good to your sons too
Oh, you see that skin?
It's his body that he's liven in
But since the day he felt it stolen away
And now he's left wondering why...
So mothers, be good to your sons
Sons will love like you do
Sons become lovers who turn into fathers
So fathers, be good to your sons too
Boys, you can break
But it's not yours to take
Boys will be strong
And boys soldier on
But boys would be kinder with warmth from
A woman's good, good heart
On behalf of every woman
Looking out for every boy
You are the god and the weight of his world
So mothers, be good to your sons
Sons will love like you do
Sons become lovers who turn into fathers
So fathers, be good to your sons too.
Love of a Mother painting by Leisa Collins, New Zealand
An email we received this morning (intact as it was sent):
"YOUNEED TO STOP THE DISCUSIONS ABOUT CIRCUMSICION AND UNCIRCUMSICION. As a doctor and mother you should know not to judge. You have allot of fans and I'm sure half of them have there boys circumcised it is an insult when we read the post with mothers that are so rude about decisions we made to our children. It is not peaceful parenting there is no peace in any of those posts. I Just un liked your page because the discusions are disgusting.."
And our response:
Male and female genital mutilation are certainly disgusting, you are correct. There are so many parents who were victims of a myth-filled society right along side their daughters and sons. It is heart breaking to hear their stories - parents who deeply love their children and have always wanted what was best for them, but were not fully informed when making this decision. Read many of their stories and comments from others in, I Circumcised My Son: Healing From Regret, or 'meet' countless amazing parents with both circumcised and intact sons over at Keeping Future Sons Intact.
No parent should have to go into this alone, and without being fully equipped with accurate information to make a health conscious decision for their little one. This is just one reason we will not be silent on the horrific lies told about MGM/FGM. Thankfully, when we know better, we do better, and we can each make differences for our future children and grandchildren. All human beings are born into this world with the basic human right of bodily integrity - to remain intact as they enter the world and not be cut apart without medical need for the money-making of a few and the fear mongering of an ill society.
As per the discussions, we unfortunately do not have the time capacity to read through and moderate comments left by 12,000 people on Facebook (moderators of the page are all professionals with families of their own). But there are many who skip the FB discussions altogether and solely stick to reading the material that fits their needs them on DrMomma.org.
Best wishes to you and your kids in the future,
~~~~
He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it. ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
By Danelle Frisbie
I met with a powerhouse, life-changing, lactation consultant, childbirth educator, and intactivist today at a major Eastern Iowa hospital. Their rate of breastfeeding initiation for babies born last week was 100%! Unfortunately, their rate of genital cutting is still far too high, and despite her attempts to get accurate and complete information to all parents about to say "okay" to the amputation of their son's prepuce, the hospital still half-heartedly hands over an (outdated and non-factual) list of general 'pros' and 'cons' of MGM. [Note: As countless informed doctors have repeated, and every reliable/valid study has shown: there are no 'pros' to neonatal infant circumcision.]
In any event, this hero of mine was telling stories from the hospital life that have happened since the last time we got together -- some made me laugh, some horrified me, many brought tears to my eyes, both happy and sad. Here, where only 5% of parents ever attend a childbirth or infant-care class, many leave the hospital as uninformed as they were when they first walked through the doors. And a great number of them (and their babies) leave in a state of health that is worse off than they would have been if they'd never set foot in the hospital in the first place. Most are induced. Drugs are ubiquitous. Women's pelvic floors are torn apart during birth. Babies face fractures, broken collar bones, bruises, punctures, and twists and turns of their tiny bodies that they were never meant to endure. New breastfeeding mothers suffer silently at home, thinking their crying baby "doesn't like her milk" when really, he is in pain - recovering from the amputation of part of his tiny, ultra-sensitive penis, or achy because his spine has been maneuvered in ways it was never meant to be. Misinformed friends tell these mothers it is "just colic" and will go away in a few months...
If moms reach out for help (some do, and this is great!) they are often advised to see a chiropractor skilled in working on newborns in pain. Hospital birth, as it stands in most U.S. states (and all the interventions and complications that arise as a result of 'violent' birth) reeks havoc on many bodies -- those of birthing mothers and the little ones they bring into the world.
But when so few seek out information or education ahead of time -- before bringing a new life into this world -- and even fewer still have access to skilled help and accurate and adequate information to make wise, health-conscious decisions -- I am left wondering how we reach those parents?
See, it is easy to educate and inform those seeking research-based information. In fact, most parents who do spend the same amount of time (or more!) researching birth options, breastfeeding, intact care, infant sleep, vaccinations, etc., as they do researching which stroller/carseat/layettes they wish to put baby into, come to fairly solid (baby-friendly) conclusions. Birth works best when left alone and trusted. Breastfeeding and keeping babies whole is normal. Babies sleep best near their mothers. Crying is indicative of an unmet need that must be figured out. Vaccinations must be weighed on an individual, case-by-case basis according to a child's specific needs and risk-factors, for any one manufactured injection, illness, or desired life-long, natural immunity.
I do what I can here via peaceful parenting - and I am constantly talking with new moms and dads I meet, answering questions, pointing them in directions that will be helpful, and not hurtful. It takes a lot of people planting seeds, but I do foresee this pretty fabulous garden springing forth in our future! :)
While we were hesitant to start the Facebook page for DrMomma.org in 2009, I am now thankful it was done. Although there are far too many misinformed comments (and sometimes, sadly, some rude comments) left by readers, there are also *MANY* people reached who would otherwise never have stumbled upon research-based, mother/baby-friendly care information. It is simply a fact (as much as it makes me cringe) that many young parents-to-be are getting their information about birth and babies from pop media sources and social networking sites.
Yes, family influence certainly plays a role in everything: "what my mom did..." or "my dad told me..." or "my best friend knows someone who..." still matters a great deal. But if each one reaches one, then accurate information goes a long way. And you never know when you may be treading on fertile ground... That post you share on Facebook, or the tweet you toss out to the world on Twitter may seem rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but there are many, many, MANY parents who have written us (and we are just one source of information among countless) to say thank you for giving them a go-to guide for research based advice after they stumbled upon a post that a friend-of-a-friend had shared.
I met with a group of 15 and 16 year old mothers the other day at a teen pregnancy support group in the hospital. They were rejoined together after having their babies. A few of them were huge breastfeeding advocates and had no shame in feeding their babies the way they were designed to eat. I was impressed. These young girls chatted about the latest and greatest trends in music and fashion and pop teen culture that I know nothing about - but they also shared with each other articles they saw on Facebook: about 200+ babies dying from circumcision each year in the U.S., and all the reasons their son was born perfect just the way he was. They asked if I'd come look at their crib that they'd turned into a cosleeper so they could comfortably share sleep and nurse at night on a safe surface. They showed me pictures they'd printed off of celebs carrying their babies, and nursing in public. We practiced wrapping with the Moby, and talked about gentle ways to soothe a tired baby. Ten years ago I may have told you that no one should parent a child in 21st century North America until they are at least 30 (after all, there is little to no support for new mothers in modern U.S. society). Yes, I know, you probably would have laughed at me... But today I realize that mothers of all ages can be fierce, instinctual, and deeply wise, protectors of their tiny cubs if, and when, they are given access to accurate information, baby-friendly resources, and empowering follow-up assistance, encouragement, and support. In many young groups, too, peers matter! So that tweet or post you mull around on may just be passed about for months or years to follow if you send it out into the world...
I encourage you - as silly as it may seem if you are a 35-yr-old mom or a 65-yr-old grandfather - to post and re-post items you find useful and informative online. Have a saved file of general comments packed full of additional useful links (babywearing/breastfeeding/intactivism/sleep/fussiness/carseats/vaccines/diet/etc.), and copy/paste this paragraph to any message board or thread that you come across where new parents are posing questions on a given subject. You do not need to spend all day there, and in fact, it may be best for your own sanity if you don't go back to read follow-up comments (especially on sites like "16 & Pregnant" "Parenting" "Circle of Moms" "Baby Center" and the like). But just putting your voice, with extra links, out there serves a bigger cause, and changes the world - little by little - each and every day. You can know you made a difference for at least ONE. And that matters!
~~~~
We've put together a few cards (found here) that we regularly hand to new parents, pregnant mothers, clients, post on public bulletin boards, or slide into pregnancy/birth/parenting books here and there...
One easy, friendly way to approach parents (or pregnant mommas) you see is to simply say, "Congratulations! Some of the info on this site really helped me when I had a baby..." Smile, hand a card, and continue on your way. Simple. Helpful. And s/he can take it or leave it. :) With this non-intrusive, quick, light-hearted approach, I've never had anything but a positive reaction from parents.
Cheers to all of you in service for a gently parented next generation. You always inspire me!
We cannot withhold facts for fear of offending
because the importance of the information
outweighs people's right to not be challenged in their beliefs.
~ Maddy Reid
He who passively accepts evil
is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it.
He who accepts evil without protesting against it
is really cooperating with it.
~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
