Further thoughts on abortion

Here are a few more.

• Consent to have sex is not the same as consent to become pregnant any more than consent to drive is the same as consent to be in a traffic accident. Indulging in the former naturally carries with it the risk that the latter may occur, but they are not the same thing. We have technologies at our disposal to help mitigate that risk. So much of the pro-life movement seems to exist under the assumption that the pregnant woman was asking for it. But ultimately it just feels to me like they want to punish women for having sex.

• Pregnancy and childbirth is the most intimate human experience possible. Even women who have very easy pregnancies and fast, easy, painless births experience a kind of intimacy with their fetus that is quite literally unimaginable for those who haven't been through it. The sensation of having another being living inside you for nine months cannot be adequately described. Birth is even more intimate; I completely understand why women who have had terrible birth experiences talk about PTSD and "birth-rape." Forcing a woman to go through the experience of pregnancy and childbirth is, in my opinion, more of a violation than rape. It doesn't matter to me why she got pregnant or why she feels she cannot carry the fetus to term, if a woman wants to end a pregnancy, no one should be able to force her continue it.
  

• A blastocyst is not a human individual, it's a ball of cells. And the rights of a ball of cells should not trump the rights of a woman to bodily integrity. On the other hand, a fetus that is ready to be born is a human individual, and at that point the fetus' right to life trumps the mother's right to bodily integrity. So, at some point between week 3 and week 37 (or so), the scales tip. I don't know when that is, although I think there's a lot of merit to the idea of age of viability, which is currently around 25 weeks. It makes sense to me that if a fetus is capable of life outside the womb, it should no longer be considered a part of its mother, but rather an individual with its own rights. That is why efforts to delay or postpone abortions, like waiting periods and limiting access, piss me off so much. They just make the matter murkier, pushing fetal development closer to that indistinct tipping point. It's not about educating the mother at all, it's about forcing her hand. Which is a violation of her bodily integrity (see point 2).

• The new ultrasound laws are patronizing and misogynistic. It assumes that the pregnant woman is a child or an imbecile, someone who doesn't understand her body, the procedure, or basic biology. It is also a punishment. A shaming technique absolutely intended to provoke feelings of guilt and remorse. I can't imagine a woman who is seeking an abortion doesn't know what she's doing any more than a man who orders a steak doesn't understand what he is doing. So let's pass a law mandating that meat-eaters watch a video of a slaughter house before they are allowed to purchase ground beef or order filet mignon, shall we? Sometimes there's a good reason for not wanting to be able to accurately visualize the consequences of our actions.

So those are the thoughts that have been stewing in my brain for some time. Also, I just started poking around Angie's blog, but I like this post on her pregnancy experience. I'd never heard of that kind of birth control tampering before.

Measles and Vaccination

As parents, we tend to be dramatically polarized on a number of topics. But one of the hottest these days is the subject of vaccination. So, inspired by the current measles outbreak in Minnesota, here I go into the fray to provide you all with my two cents.

As a parent who has been extremely conscientious of my vaccination decisions (we've gotten Ren most of the AAP-recommended vaccines, but delayed or declined a few), I've often mentally lumped myself in with the anti-vax crowd. This position has gotten me in some trouble with the pro-vax folks, who seem to think that any opposition or hint of opposition to the AAP vaccination schedule indicates superstitious ignorance at best and borderline child neglect at worst. I find that to be simplistic and insulting. For one, I'm not interested in a conversation about dangerous vs. safe. The research I've done indicates that vaccines are about as safe as any medication can be. So that issue is put to bed for me.

No, one of the things I'm most concerned about with regards to vaccines is the long-term consequences. (I'm also concerned about case-by-case necessity, but I'm not going to get into the necessity argument right now, other than to say that I don't care how safe the Hep-B vaccine is, it was not necessary to give my newborn medication to prevent that particular disease). And measles is the perfect disease to illustrate my point about long-term consequences.

With the current epidemic, most of the reports imply or state outright that measles is a very serious disease. They stress that people can die from measles. The truth is it can be a serious disease for some people, particularly the very old or very young, just like the flu or chickenpox/shingles. But, like those other diseases, it is generally not a serious illness in otherwise healthy people. So what we're really concerned about with a measles epidemic is protecting infants and the elderly.

The reports also suggest that vaccination is the answer. Well, actually, what they really suggest is that non-compliance with the AAP vaccination schedule (by wing-nuts like me) is the problem. The thing is, if we were to allow children to get measles naturally instead of vaccinating them, infants and the elderly would arguably be better protected:

"Recovery from natural measles infection confers lifelong immunity and a woman who has recovered from measles as a child passes maternal antibodies to her fetus, which often protects her newborn from measles for the first year of life. Young mothers today, who were vaccinated as children and never had measles do not have natural maternal measles antibodies to pass on to their babies and, so, most American babies born today are vulnerable to measles from the moment of birth." - http://www.nvic.org/Vaccines-and-Diseases/MMR.aspx (emphasis mine)

That is why I am concerned about the measles vaccine, not because of any claims about autism (thoroughly, utterly debunked, by the way). Currently, most older people had measles naturally as children, so they are protected. There will soon come a day, however, when they are not protected because they all got the vaccine as kids instead of the disease and their immune systems may be too compromised for a booster. At that point, those people most likely to suffer complications from the disease will be completely vulnerable should an outbreak occur; today's babies are already completely vulnerable.

By using this vaccine we've put ourselves in a position where:
A) parents no longer recognize the disease
B) doctors no longer know how to treat it
and
C) the most vulnerable people (the very young and very old) don't have a natural immunity.

By vaccinating, we've done a good job of drastically reducing the number of measles cases, but in exchange the disease is that much more dangerous when there is an outbreak. And I'm afraid the same thing is happening with the chickenpox vaccine. I'm not saying there's an easy answer, I'm just trying to demonstrate that there are consequences to any decision.

All that being said, I chose to get Ren the MMR when she started going to day care because, whatever my personal qualms, I felt a duty to our community to protect all its vulnerable members. I'm just not 100% happy with that choice; it'd be nice if Ren could have natural immunity as an adult, and her babies could have protection as infants. It seems like a Catch-22 either way...

I know this is a hot-button issue for many people, and I hope I haven't offended anyone. What do you think?

My Thoughts on Circumcision

I wrote the following when I was pregnant with Ren, but it came up again recently when a friend of mine posted a link to an anti-circumcision video on Facebook. So, here are my thoughts on routine infant male circumcision. Enjoy!



All right, March mamas, I’ll get the ball rolling.

DISCLAIMER: I’m just going to do a really basic overview of what I found when I looked into circumcision, before I learned that my baby is (most likely) a girl [Guess what? She was! ;) ]. I’m not always going to site specific statistics or articles, because I am too lazy to go re-find the sources I originally looked at. Quoted sources will be cited. All of this information (and a LOT more) can be found by browsing through the MDC Case Against Circumcision thread (http://www.mothering.com/discussions/forumdisplay.php?f=44)

Here are the main questions I had when looking for info:

What is the foreskin?
“The foreskin is not an inconsequential "flap of skin", as I had been led to believe all of my life. It is actually a highly specialized organ with tens of thousands of nerve endings and grows to be up to 15" square or more in area when a boy becomes an adult. Throughout life, it performs many functions. In infancy, the foreskin provides protection from urine and feces since it is closed and tightly adhered to the penis like a fingernail to a finger (it stays that way until about the age of five, but sometimes until the age of 18 or more). In adulthood, it provides protection from the rubbing of clothing and it provides intense sexual sensations for the man and his partner.”
source: http://www.stopcirc.com/ilearned.html

What exactly is circumcision?
“Circumcision is not a "little snip" as I had heard many refer to it. Approximately 2/3 of the penile skin and most of the sensitivity of the organ is removed. It is an extraordinarily painful procedure, as the delicate foreskin is forcibly ripped from the penis and then slit, crushed and cut away. It takes about 15-20 minutes, with the baby separated from his mother and strapped spread eagle to a plastic restraint. Pain relief is not normally administered although circumcision is classified as surgery. It was thought years ago that babies this young felt no pain, but this theory has since been disproved. A matter of fact, the opposite has been determined through numerous studies - babies feel pain much more intensely than adults. Today, the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) considers it unethical for a doctor to withhold pain relief during circumcision although many still do.”
source: http://www.stopcirc.com/ilearned.html

How common is male circumcision?
Not as common as most Americans think. In fact, it’s pretty rare in most non-Muslim parts of the world other than the US.

Why is it common in the US?
During the Victorian period (mid 1800s), male circumcision was introduced in the English-speaking world as a way to prevent masturbation. Popularity continued in the US through the 1950s and into the 1970s, with the new “medical” reason being that a circumcised penis is “healthier”. (I think they kept it up in order to keep making money from the procedure.)

How common is it in the US today?
It’s losing popularity, with about 50% of boys born in the US today being circumcised shortly after birth. Regional differences are big, though, with only about 30% of California boys being circumcised, versus up to 80% of Midwestern boys. [Since I wrote this back in 2007, the rate has dropped even more, down to around one-third of baby boys nation-wide in 2009 (http://www.drmomma.org/2010/08/us-circumcision-rate-falls-to-33.html)]

So, why would anyone choose this for non-religious reasons? (Common pro-circ reasons, and the rebuttals)

Circumcision prevents STDs and penile cancer - hmmmm... not really. Some studies may show a very slightly higher risk of contracting an STD for intact men, but your son’s foreskin status should NEVER be the first line of defense for STDs anyway. Teach your son to abstain or practice safe sex, and his foreskin won’t be an issue. The cancer thing has been pretty much debunked.

Circumcision prevents UTIs in infant males - although intact infant boys do have a slightly higher risk of UTIs in the first year of life, UTIs are still very rare in ALL male babies. It’s something between 1 in 100 to 1 in 800, depending on the study. Not a valid reason to deprive your son of a healthy body part.

Circumcision in infancy keeps him from having to be circumcised as an adult, when it would be more memorable/painful/scarring - There are a few medical conditions that might ultimately result in a medically necessary circumcision for an adult man, the main one being a persistent tight foreskin (phimosis). But again, this condition is rare, and not a valid reason to circumcise.

Basically, I see all the “medical” arguments this way: it makes the same amount of sense as ripping out our babies’ toenails (with little or no anesthetic) in order to save them from ingrown toenail infections and athlete’s foot in adulthood.

But isn’t an intact penis harder to keep clean? - No. The American Association of Pediatrics says: “Care of the uncircumcised boy is quite easy. ‘Leave it alone’ is good advice. External washing and rinsing on a daily basis is all that is required. Do not retract the foreskin in an infant, as it is almost always attached to the glans. Forcing the foreskin back may harm the penis, causing pain, bleeding, and possibly adhesions. The natural separation of the foreskin from the glans may take many years. After puberty, the adult male learns to retract the foreskin and cleanse under it on a daily basis.”
source: http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/aap/


So what about social reasons?

I want baby to look like dad - Huh. Yeah. Except a child’s penis looks NOTHING like an adult’s penis. What child compares himself that minutely to his father? If your son can handle the fact that he’s shorter than dad, less hairy, and may have different hair/eye/skin color, I don’t think he’s going to fret over foreskin differences.

Won’t he get teased in the locker room? - For one, circumcision is declining in the US, and rare practically everywhere else, so he’s not likely to be the only intact boy in his school. Plus, what adolescent boy points out another boy’s penis to his peers? Boys in locker rooms don’t generally announce that they’ve been checking out other boy’s penises. If your son notices he’s different, hopefully he has been raised with enough love and support that he has the self-esteem not to be bothered too much.

Religious reasons: I don’t really want to touch this, but there are a lot of resources for parents struggling with the religious aspect of circumcision. Many Christians feel circumcision is not at all required as part of their faith, since it is not part of the New Covanent (http://www.stopcirc.com/christian.html). Many Jewish and Muslim parents are also re-examining the roots of circumcision in their faiths, and coming to new conclusions (sorry I don’t have links).

So, what are the drawbacks of circumcision?
Pain, infection, breastfeeding difficulties, and loss of sexual sensitivity are just a few. I didn’t look too deeply into this aspect of the issue when I was doing my research, since I went in with a “Why should I?” attitude rather than a “Why not?” As you can imagine, there’s a ton of resources out there on this subject.

Tons of pages of links to various external websites can be found in the web resources thread of the MDC CAC board: http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=207626


I hope you all find this helpful! (and also not too preachy) Mamas with more experience, PLEASE add your advice and stories.

Wishing you all happy and healthy babies!

On Nursing a Growing Girl

Yay, insomnia!

This is a little different than my normal political rants, but I can't sleep and I've got something on my mind, so here goes.

As Ren gets closer to being three, and as Erik and I prepare to start trying for a second child, I find myself more and more conflicted about continuing to nurse. It's not that I'm leaning more towards weaning, it's more that both the pros and cons are getting weightier.

For reference, I don't nurse Ren that much. She's cut way down in the last 6 months or so. We night-weaned (for my sanity) at around 18 months. We stopped nursing in public for the most part when she was around two, and now we don't do it at all. That pretty much went hand in hand with other forms of modesty. I've started feeling uncomfortable even nursing at other people's homes, although it does depend quite a bit on the person. So now it's pretty much just sometimes when we're hanging out at home in the morning, or right before bed. But she's showing no signs of wanting to stop entirely.

Before having Ren, I was one of those women who said that once my kids could eat food (or ask to nurse, or pull up my shirt), there'd be no reason to continue to nurse. Ha! Boy, was I ever wrong!

Once I realized what a boob-hog I had, I swung the other the direction. Child-led weaning FTW! I'd just let her stop when she was ready, right? After all, it's perfectly natural to breastfeed well into early childhood, right?

Well, I still believe that (and here's a really great article by Kathy Dettwyler that offers compelling evidence). But, gosh, she's getting so big. She's not a toddler, anymore; she's really a little girl. And I can't imagine she's going to give it up on her own any time soon, but sometimes I look down at her and it does seem a little strange.

I'd like to believe that I'm not being influenced by other people's opinions, that I'm only taking my needs and Ren's needs into account. But I don't think that's entirely true. Because we live in a culture where nursing a 2 year old is rare, and nursing a 3 year old is often seen as downright sick. So far I've been blessed with an army of friends and family who have been supportive of extended nursing. But I'm starting to feel that support subtly dry up, although that may be just paranoia or projection on my part.

It's always been vitally important to me to follow Ren's cues. It is my instinct to do so, and without that instinct I would have been utterly lost for the past (almost) three years. I believe that by following Ren's cues about things like breastfeeding, sleep, food, etc., Erik and I have been very successful in raising a happy, caring, curious, secure, boisterous little girl. It is my instinct that if were to try to wean Ren soon, even gently, it would be extremely painful for her, and it might cause undue strain on her relationship with me. It is such a haven for her.

But I'm not sure. Maybe she's ready, and all she needs is a little nudge.

I certainly don't want to wait until I'm very pregnant, or worse, have a new baby, because I really don't want her to connect weaning with the new baby in any way. I will not be able to deny her that comfort if I'm offering it to her sibling.

So, it seems like it's gotta be now, or much later. But I don't know, I don't know...

I'm going to have to figure it out soon, aren't I?

Another Wellstone Memorial?

It pains me to say that it looks like conservative pundits like Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh are turning the memorial for the shootings in Tuscon into another Wellstone Memorial.

I just need to get this all out of my system, because it upsets me so much; sorry if there is little or no coherence to my thoughts. [I'm also fixing typos as I can, sorry]

They're saying that the White House, Obama, the Democrats, the liberals, or whoever cynically turned the Tuscon memorial into a political pep rally, complete with T-shirts with a logo and a slogan. I'll admit that the T-shirts are a weird idea, and an incredibly tacky one if they, in fact, have a Rock the Vote slogan on them, which is as-yet unconfirmed, and I don't really believe it. They're even recycling that old chestnut from the Wellstone Memorial smear: that the closed captioning on the JumboTron was actually an applause sign. Seriously? Are people really this stupid?

OK. The thing is: I attended the Wellstone Memorial and I personally knew some of the people who organized it. So I feel like I have a little insight into what really happened there. It was NEVER intended to be a pep rally or a campaign event. It was four hours of intense emotions shared by tens of thousands of people. Did some people boo conservative politicians? Yes. But only a few out of the vast crowd. There are bound to be a few assholes in any crowd. Did some of the speeches get a little political? Yes. Especially Rick Kahn's. But you know what? Rick was Paul's best friend. He was crazy with grief. Everyone involved in organizing the memorial, all those people who had worked for and loved Paul and Sheila and Will and the other victims, they were all crazy with grief. So crazy that they didn't vet the speeches. It didn't even occur to them. So when Rick went insane in front of a national viewing audience, it was like, holy shit! And when the SAME DAMN pundits who are doing it again now used the "inappropriate", "don't-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste" spin to get Coleman elected, a little part of me died.

[One quick side note: the whole "don't let a crisis go to waste" thing? Lemme see, how'd that work out for Bush? Seems to me he converted 9/11 into that illegal war he wanted, PLUS a second term!]

But that's not the crux of it, I realized tonight. I think the main problem is a real disconnect between the way Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin view the memorials and how they should have been, and the emotional truth of those memorials. So let me spell it out. Because this is surely an honest mistake, right?

Sometimes, when people go through a terrible tragedy, they don't act the way one might think they ought to. In the case of both the Wellstone and the Tuscon memorials, we had all been through a rough few days. Most of us didn't know the victims personally; it was more a symbolic hurt, a symbolic grief. But truly felt, to be sure. The shooting in Tuscon felt like our democracy was under siege, to me, at least. For a member of Congress, a symbol of our government, our democracy and our way of life, to be gunned down on a street corner along with some of her constituents, while she was engaged in her civic duty to those constituents, felt like an attack on all I hold Holy about our nation. Based on the national reaction, I can't be the only one who felt that way. And so for days I felt adrift, hurt, scared. Then I watched the memorial, and here was finally a place where I felt understood and validated, but also uplifted. Our nation is still strong; we have been hurt but we will rise up; and, most important, we are all in this together!

So I can fully understand the reaction from the crowd in Tuscon that night. Here was a group of thousands who had been through a lot. No one stands in a line for a memorial for hours if they are not carrying some pretty heavy baggage about it. And then? Catharsis! We're OK! We're going to get through this! The PRESIDENT HIMSELF says so! The relief! So of course they cheered. And yes, it was loud and boisterous, but people in the extremes of emotion may react in myriad ways.

Cut these people some slack. And please don't let's turn this into another Wellstone Memorial.

Kick ass speech by the President, by the way. Here's my favorite part:
"Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together."

"Sharpen our instincts for empathy...", that is just beautiful.

[ETA: I originally posted that Jeff Blodgett was the close friend who gave the inappropriately political speech at the Wellstone memorial, instead of Rick Kahn. My mistake, I was writing from memory. Jeff Blodgett was Paul's campaign manager, who also subsequently apologized for the tone of the memorial. My apologies to Mr. Blodgett.]

Literal vs. figurative

This isn't so much of a rant as just a jotting down of impressions. If you want something that's passionate and (kind of) well thought out, look elsewhere.


So on my way to work today, there was a story on the radio about the Tea Party in Michigan; something to do with a Democratic plot to start a fake Tea Party to split the vote on the right (which, if true, is vile). Anyway, one quote that struck me was an actual Tea Party member saying something along the lines of: "We don't want a political party; we just want to elect politicians who believe in the Constitution." Huh. Maybe I'm hopelessly naive, but I guess I thought that most politicians currently in office, on both sides of the aisle, do "believe in the Constitution." Why else would they bother being politicians?

Then I realized that the subtext behind the woman's statement was that there's pretty much only one way to interpret the Constitution, and that the Tea Party wants to elect politicians who believe in the Constitution in the "right" way. Which also got me started thinking about people who take the Bible literally, or at least who believe that there is only one way to interpret it.

I really don't want to make any value judgments about people who believe in a "strict" interpretation of either the Constitution or the Bible. But for me that kind of concrete thinking just doesn't work. I'm glad it works for them. I just can't imagine having that kind of certainty, that there is only one way to look at things and that my way is the right way.

So then I started thinking about concrete/literal thought versus abstract/figurative thought. It seems like some people believe that the former is better, more real. Which is true a lot of the time. In the real world, you have to put real food on the table, or you really will starve.

But I also think that there is something powerful about figurative thought that can feed the human soul. That sometimes literalism needs to be put aside so that the metaphor can speak to us more loudly. I think that millenia of human art speaks to this: sometimes a painting of a lilypad contains more lilypad-truthiness than a picture of one, or even the real thing. Sometimes there is more Truth to be found in the figurative than the literal.

Hence my Facebook status today.

Liz asked about the status as I was writing this, and after I explained (poorly) my train of thought, she wondered aloud whether those people who prefer concrete or literal interpretations might not also have less interest in art (or, as she put it, "less art in their lives"). It's an interesting question...

A couple thoughts on abortion

OK, I'm not going to launch into a whole big thing about abortion, because honestly I'm conflicted and I don't have all the facts. But the subject has come up twice today, in two otherwise unrelated instances, and so now my typical abortion thoughts are sloshing around my head. So here are my main two thoughts which occur to me every time the subject comes up, but seem to get very little airplay in the general discourse:

1) Our bodies can't keep up with our culture
Our bodies were designed to function perfectly in a culture and environment that no longer exists. There are a few of ways in which this problem manifests itself, but the one which is germane (I've used that word TWICE today!) to this topic is the fact that our bodies now become sexually mature a full ten years or so before we become socially mature. For the vast majority of human history, young people became sexually mature at roughly the same time that they entered into social maturation: a young woman became capable of childbirth at roughly the same time she was expected to get married, in her mid-teens. In our current culture, however, young women are hitting puberty at younger and younger ages and putting off having kids later and later. There is this widening gap between sexual maturation and the age at which it is wise to have children. Even "young" mothers who get married and have their babies in their early twenties have about a five year gap. Which is why I'm surprised that "pro-life" and "abstinence only" seem to go together so often. It seems so impractical. You really expect the vast majority of American women to remain abstinent for five to ten years after their sexual maturity? It has never been a problem before, because women didn't wait so long to have babies before. But in the society we live in now, a woman severely limits her financial, educational and professional choices if she opts to have children in her mid-teens or early twenties. I'm not saying abstinence is BAD, not at all. I have the utmost respect for young adults who make that choice for themselves. But expecting ALL young adults to be willing and able to live up to that standard is preposterous, to be honest. So it seems to me like practical people who understand human biology should support some kind of reproductive rights...

2) Let's stop fighting and try to support women and babies instead
As I said earlier, I am conflicted about abortion. I don't know that I could ever have one myself, even in the case of rape. I am happy, however, that I get to make that choice for myself. I also realize that I have been lucky enough to be well-educated and well-loved by supportive family and friends, and that this is not true for every woman or girl. Probably because I am conflicted, it really irks me that the debate is so polarized. I honestly wish we lived in a world where no one had to make that awful choice; so why can't we work together to make that world? I would be much happier to see abortion made illegal if we lived in a country where high-quality birth control was readily available to everyone, preferably for free; where high-quality childcare and early childhood education were affordable; where adoption was easier; where quality choices in prenatal care and childbirth were affordable and accessible; where all single parents who were willing to work could make a living wage for their families. Anyone who really cares about reducing the number of abortions in this country should focus their efforts on health care reform and workers' rights. Maybe I'm naive, but I firmly believe that most women who have a choice, a real choice, would choose to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term.

A few bonus thoughts, since Erik is too busy right now to proofread this:
I find it extremely disingenuous when people 1) claim they are not homophobic and don't hate homosexuals; 2) support abstinence only programs and; 3) do not support gay marriage. I see: they don't HATE gay people, they just don't think they should have sex. Ever. Never, ever.

I hate it when people say "pro-abortion" instead of "pro-choice." Like, no one is pro-abortion. Seriously. OK, maybe some seriously twisted people, but the great majority of people who believe in a woman's right to choose still do not think abortion is some great thing. They're not all, "Yay! Abortion! Woot!" So stop being a jerk.

I also get irritated by the pro-life billboards that proclaim "My heart was beating 18 days from conception!" and then show a picture of a six month old. You know why they show a picture of a six month old? Because six month old babies are cute and 18 day old embryos are not. They don't even look human. They look like this: