Sound familiar? Here are some of the highlights from the above article that I thought had shocking parallels with male infant circumcision:
"According to the mom, she injects the anti-wrinkle poison into her daughter's face to get rid of "wrinkles..."
Kerry (the mom) said that Britney (the daughter) wanted the Botox because of beauty pageant pressures. Kerry insists that Britney is the one who asked for the beauty treatment. Even so, why would the mom approve it much less inject it herself?
Kerry said, "We were getting into the pageants. I knew she was complaining about her face, having wrinkles, and things like that. When I brought it up to Britney she was all for it."Some of the most common reasons for male infant circumcision are related to aesthetic preference. "It just looks better," say some parents and advocates of circumcision, "women prefer it this way, and I don't want my son to be made fun of in the locker room." Maybe this woman didn't want her daughter to be made fun of in the beauty pageant?
Here's another thing parents say; "my son says he's happy being circumcised." To confirm this they say, "I've asked him myself, and he thanks me every day." (Oh, does he now.)
I'm going to ask a similar, but familiar question; without medical or clinical indication, how is it doctors are performing circumcisions on healthy, non-consenting infants, much less stoking a parent's sense of entitlement?
"Normally children are only given Botox in cases of neuromuscular problems - not for the sake of beauty."I must say.
Normally children are only given surgery where there is clinical or medical indication; not for the sake of aesthetic.
I will say that sometimes surgery IS performed for aesthetic reasons, such an when the child has a congenital deformity, birth defect, or genetic anomaly, such as a cleft, a 6th finger, or a disfiguring birthmark. But in these cases, there ARE genuine physical deformities that warrant surgical correction. The foreskin isn't an abnormality; it's normal, healthy tissue all boys are born with.
"These Botox injections are quite painful as you can see in the video below. Britney looks awful after the treatments with ice packs on her face. What kind of physical and psychological damage can these early beauty treatments cause to a young girl. Honestly, it is quite scary."If injecting botox is "scary," I wonder what this author thinks of circumcising a child. Is anybody wondering about the physical and/or psychological damage that circumcising a young child can cause?
I encourage readers to watch a circumcision video. There are plenty on YouTube. Circumcision is also painful, as evidenced by the ear-splitting shrieks babies make when they're being circumcised.
"Babies can't remember being circumcised," some may say.
But of course, a baby wouldn't remember botox injections either.
This mother has lost her daughter's custody, and, in my opinion, rightfully so.
Here are highlights from the above link:
Now because of her actions, Kerry will have to own up to her poor decisions. CPS stated that there was no clear timetable about the custody issue. They also admitted that it could take some time before Britney can live with her mother. Officials are conducting a thorough investigation and are concerned about the child's psychological trauma about the situation.
Though it's heartbreaking to hear that a little girl is upset after being taken from her mother, a mother who elects to inject her 8-year-old with Botox is not a parent. She is making poor decisions for her child that could have severe long-term consequences. What was she thinking?
Kerry Campbell should look within herself before making such choices. It's despicable and though the ordeal is likely traumatic for Britney, it serves as a lesson for all the overbearing pageant moms out there.
Let kids be kids.YES. Let kids be kids.
This is the whole message of the intactivist movement in a nutshell.
Notice the language in the above segment. It talks about decisions and choices that parents make. I've asked this in other posts, but is all that a parent decides to do with his/her children justified by mere virtue that one is a parent?
This mother chose to inject botox into her daughter. SHOULD she have had her daughter taken away from her? After all, it IS her daughter, and who is the state to come and tell her how to raise her children. This mother did what she thought was best. She wanted her daughter to "win" at the pageant. Was this mother really that bad of the parent?
The following article asks just that.
"People have so many different opinions about Kerry losing her daughter, because she wasn't doing anything to harm her intentionally. Clearly the mother is obsessed with her daughter winning the pageant, but surely she can't be the first person to take things to another level, right?"
"A lot of people feel that Britney should not have been taken away from her mother, but disqualified from the beauty pageant instead. It's not like Britney was in danger or her mother was an unfit parent (to an extent)."
"It seems as though Kerry just let things get to her head. She injected Botox in to her daughter's face because she wanted her daughter to look flawless - and to win. While this isn't "okay" by any standards, is it something so terrible that she deserved to lose custody of her daughter?"Is it?
If parents can pierce their daughter's ears, and circumcise their boys for aesthetic reasons, then it should only follow that parents should be allowed to inject botox into their daughters, right?
What wrong was it really, if this mother had the best intentions?
My mind's already made up; the road to hell is paved with good intent.
This is obviously another case of a pageant mother gone way out of hand.
Could it be parents insistent on having their sons circumcised are a different kind of "pageant parent" who don't want their child to "lose" in the lockerroom?
And could it be American medicine is capitalizing on this parental sense of entitlement?
A ban on infant circumcision has been proposed in San Francisco, and people are up in arms claiming that the ban would infringe on "religious freedoms," and, but of course, "parental rights."
I ask again; how far do we care about "parental rights" really? Just how far can a parent go with their children before we call it abuse and Child Protective Services has to step in?
You can circumcise your son to make him "look better" in the lockerroom, but you can't inject botox into your daughter so she can look good in the beauty pageant.
Am I missing something?
Earlier story about the San Francisco Circumcision Ban here:
Finds from a different article:
"It's a tough world in the pageant world, I'm telling you," Mrs Campbell told the program. "The kids are harsh."
"There (are) a lot of concerns you'd have for an eight-year-old who's being put through Botox treatment for wrinkles she doesn't have," Dr Neuhaus said.
And, of course, we've heard this all before...