I love this show...
Posted on 02/18/2006 6:34:25 PM PST by dpa5923
CHICAGO (AFP) - A clash over of their son's circumcision has landed the parents of an eight-year-old Illinois boy in a US court where there is no apparent precedent.
A Cook County judge ordered the mother in the case not to have her son circumcised until the court can hear arguments from the child's father, who opposes the operation, and decide if it is in the boy's best interest.
Jews and Muslims circumcise their sons for religious reasons.
But this case instead involves shifting medical and cultural preferences, which have recently become a matter of debate in the United States.
The mother, 31, is a homemaker from Northbrook, Illinois. She says two doctors recommended the procedure for health reasons.
But her ex-husband, 49, a building manager in Arlington Heights, Illinois, has called the procedure an "unnecessary amputation" that could cause his son physical and emotional harm.
In the 1900s, surgical circumcision, in which the foreskin of the penis is removed usually before a newborn leaves the hospital, was the norm in the United States.
But the percentage of US babies being circumcised has plunged from an estimated 90 percent in 1970 to some 60 percent now, data show.
The American Academy of Pediatrics no longer recommends routine neonatal circumcision but says the decision should be left to the parents. That has added fuel to the fire where until recently there was little debate on the issue at all among the US Christian majority.
Some staunch opponents of the procedure see it as akin to female genital mutilation. They argue that the procedure is medically unnecessary and morally wrong. Still others have launched support groups for those who have been circumcised and would rather not have been; some have even pursued surgical options for restoration.
Legal experts however say that there are no published US opinions to serve as precedents in this case. As such it normally would be determined based on the best interests of the child.
When the divorced parents appeared Friday in Cook County Circuit Court, Judge Jordan Kaplan got the two sides to agree that the child would not be circumcised "until further order of (the) court."
He also also ordered them not to discuss the case with their child.
Tracy Rizzo, an attorney for the mother, said the father scared the child by telling him frightening stories about what might happen if he were circumcised.
The father's lawyers, John D'Arco and Alan Toback, have argued that the couple's divorce agreement provides that the father must be consulted before any non-emergency medical care.
Male circumcision is much more widespread in the United States, Canada, and the Middle East than in Asia, South America, Central America, and most of Europe.
Let the kid decide.
Isn't eight years old a little late to decide this? I do not blame the dad in this one at all.
Someone is a real dick in all this....
Hey, what the hell.. let's cut off clitoral hoods as well!
I have never posted my opinion on the circumcision threads....and wont today...just will say, I always enjoy the 'fights' that go on, and will follow this thread with interest, because there are always good discussions to break up the name calling and such that inevitably occur...thanks for posting this, wonder what will happen...
"Researchers have noted links between MC [male circumcision] and HIV prevalence rates since the 1980s. The body of research now includes:
* A systematic meta-analysis that analyzed the findings of 38 studies, mostly in Africa, and found that circumcised men appear to be less than half as likely to be infected by HIV as uncircumcised men. A sub-analysis of 16 of these studies found an estimated 70 percent reduction in HIV infection among higher-risk men.
* A two-year cohort study of male partners of HIV-positive women in Rakai, Uganda, in which 40 of 137 uncircumcised men became infected, compared with 0 of 50 circumcised men.
* Mapping of the HIV epidemic that has demonstrated a strong correlation between regions with higher levels of HIV infection and those with lower MC rates.
* A Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) multisite study that found MC to be a principal factor in the large and pervasive disparities in HIV prevalence across different African regions. Similar patterns have been observed in South and Southeast Asia.
Other Health Benefits
Circumcision is already known to greatly reduce a man's risk of penile cancer, and it also apparently reduces risks of some sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including chancroid, herpes, and syphilis. It eliminates problems such as phimosis (narrow foreskin opening) and balanitis (infected foreskin), and also appears to reduce the risk of cervical cancer among female partners of circumcised men.
Research has identified plausible biological explanations for a connection between HIV infection and lack of circumcision. The tissue of the internal foreskin absorbs HIV up to nine times more efficiently than female cervical tissue, mainly because it contains Langerhans and other HIV "target cells" in much greater quantities than the cervix or other genital tissue (including other parts of the penis). In addition, the internal foreskin has a mucosal surface, as opposed to the more hardened skinlike surface of the external foreskin. This mucosal surface is particularly susceptible to tears and abrasions, and, consequently, infection by STDs and HIV. "
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/aids/TechAreas/research/mcfactsheet.html
Damn straight it is. At eight, a circumcision is painful, and psychologicaly traumatic.
Leave this boy alone.
I vote for au natural. ;)
I agree. Leave the kid alone. He can decide for himself when he attains the age of majority.
I would like to hear the doctor's testimony. I do know, in some cases, it really is a neccessary medical procedure and since the kid is eight, I imagine this may be the case.
My hubby and I both agreed to have our son snipped before he left the hospital. That was almost fourteen years ago.
If it wasn't done at birth. leave it alone.
When in doubt, wait for someone to prove himself a liar.
Just how much does it reduce the chance of penile cancer?
I love this show...
Research has identified plausible biological explanations for a connection between HIV infection and lack of circumcision. The tissue of the internal foreskin absorbs HIV up to nine times more efficiently than female cervical tissue, mainly because it contains Langerhans and other HIV "target cells" in much greater quantities than the cervix or other genital tissue (including other parts of the penis). In addition, the internal foreskin has a mucosal surface, as opposed to the more hardened skinlike surface of the external foreskin. This mucosal surface is particularly susceptible to tears and abrasions, and, consequently, infection by STDs and HIV. "
Hey Frankie, if ya cut it COMPLETELY OFF you can REALLY negate all those nasty diseases.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.