A note on intactivism

I'm still here, guys, I promise! It's been almost 2 weeks since my last post, I know. I happened to go away to a BlogHer Food conference and was caught up in first the preparation, then the event, then the aftermath. You know how these things go. I'll be back in the swing of it all soon.

But one thing I wanted to touch on briefly: I was literally on my way out of town as a pretty major scandal hit the birth & parenting blogosphere, regarding circumcision. I watched this unfold in various airports via my phone's limited internet capabilities. I did comment on both Facebook and on a few blogs where it was being discussed, but under the circumstances, didn't have anything I felt was cohesive enough for a full blog post of my own. (In brief, a baby whose health was already jeopardized by a heart condition was circumcised and subsequently died of heart failure which may or may not have been exacerbated by the blood loss which resulted from the circumcision. Some intactivists then took it upon themselves to brutally attack the family on their own blog, as well as other blogs, for making this decision. Don't try looking for the most vicious comments now, as they've been censored pretty much everywhere they appeared, but trust me - I saw them, and so did others, including the family. See the link above for more detail.)

Now it seems the furor has mostly dissipated, so I'm almost reluctant to bring it up again and risk stirring the pot. But it was a pretty remarkable situation, and I do want to address it here.

I write about topics that ARE somewhat controversial, but I have yet to really take an official stand on what I see as the three Big Ones: Vaccination, Unassisted Birth, and Circumcision. I'm still not going to get into the first two, but it will probably not surprise anyone to learn that I am generally opposed to circumcision. I tread quite lightly about it when it comes to friends and clients, particularly when there are religious convictions involved, but yes, this is my position.

But do I consider myself an "intactivist"? Until the episode of this past week, I would have said yes. Now, I'm not so sure. Is it a matter of semantics, to say that I'm anti-circumcision but not an intactivist? Probably. Is it also, then, unfair to lump all intactivists together, since it was the vocal, hateful FEW zealots that got all the attention and most hurt the grieving family, and not the majority of intactivists who would never be so disrespectful? Also quite probably. But I found the actions of some intactivists, however few, so utterly abhorrent that I'm reluctant to ever ally myself with such people ever again.

I may change my mind, but this is how I feel at the moment. VBACtivist, lactivist, even a snacktivist, but not an intactivist.


Check out this well-written intactivist's response to the situation.