Posted on 10/26/2006 8:41:34 AM PDT by Froufrou
A judge in a case closely watched by those who oppose circumcision sided Tuesday with a divorced man who did not want his 9-year-old son to undergo the procedure.
Circuit Judge Jordan Kaplan said that circumcision is "an extraordinary medical procedure" for a 9-year-old and that the boy can decide for himself when he turns 18.
The boy's father sued to block the operation in a dispute with his ex-wife. The couple's 2003 divorce decree gave the father the right to be consulted before the boy underwent any "extraordinary" non-emergency procedure.
The father said he believed surgical removal of the boy's foreskin could cause long-term physical and psychological harm. The child's mother wanted the procedure to prevent recurring infections. She testified that the boy had suffered five bouts of painful inflammation and had begged her to help him.
Newborns in several mainstream religions are routinely circumcised as part of their faith, but religious beliefs did not figure in the ruling.
Alan Toback, the father's attorney, said the man is extremely happy with the judge's decision. A telephone call to the mother's attorney was not immediately returned.
In a 1999 policy statement that was reaffirmed this year, the American Academy of Pediatrics said there are "potential medical benefits" to circumcision, including a reduction in risk of urinary tract infections. But the academy said there is not enough evidence to recommend routine circumcision of newborns.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
9 year old boy tells his best friend he is going to be circumcised. Best friend says, "I had one of them when i was born and couldn't walk for a year!"
Good one!
I heard the boy had multiple infections and it was medically necessary. I can't imagine circumsizing a young man for any other reason. Does the father really want his child to continue in pain? Baffled.
My brother who was adopted by my parents at the age of 4 did not have a circumcision at birth. My mother chose to let my brother decide and of course when he was entering his teen years and all the other boys in the locker room looked a bit different and my brother felt a bit intimidated he asked my mother to get it done. The procedure wasn't painless but at an older age they numb you unlike when you are a baby so my bother didn't really feel it that bad. He was uncomfortable for a week or so but he doesn't regret it and was glad my mom and dad told him that he could do it if he wanted.
I say since the child is 9 and it wasn't done at birth than it should be up to the child. But if this child is having infections and a doctor has said this would help them than I would allow mom to take child to get it done.
Several? Judaism is the only one.
Most Muslims practice circumcision but only rarely on newborns.
It's completely optional for Christians and has no religious significance for them.
Hindus and Buddhists don't practice it. Nor do Mormons.
I was circumcised as a newborn back in the day when every boy was. I have had no complications. Plus I never need to clean schmegma daily. I don't have to worry about infections. I don't have to worry about stretching irritation.
I'm baffled, too. Obviously this surgery was recommended by the child's doctor for medical reasons. It seems inhumane to block the surgery.
I'm betting that most of those infections could be avoided if they show the boy how to properly clean himself.
I think Dad's using a loophole to be a controlling person. He should think what it may do to his relationship with his son down the road.
It's just soap and water, and takes barely 10 seconds while in the shower. It's not like as if those who are in their natural state undergo a lot of trouble for being left intact, at least not as bad as you've pictured it to be.
Quite the contrary, I would say. Especially considering the numerous nerve-endings present on the foreskin, which stretches and inverts to become the sides of the penis while "in use".
Unless you want to hedge your bets, in case the Jews might be right. :)
It's a wonder any ancient civilization other than the Jews survived since circumcision is obviously so medically necessary!
Seriously, teach boys to use soap and water properly and infection is not an issue.
It goes much before the Jews...something prehistoric, is what I read. Stone-tools and things like that...
I wonder how the first one was done, and the parties involved, "convinced"?
I've had no problems with nerve endings THANKS. Further, little boys are not the cleanest people in the world so cleanliness is an issue. Finally, no matter how much you clean, there are crevices that trap bacteria. Coitus introduces much more bacteria.
I wonder how the first one was done, and the parties involved, "convinced"?
It's my understanding that this is why the Romans became Catholic Christians and not Jews, because Constantine couldn't "sell" circumcision to the men.
If your culture requires it, and since there seems to be no problem with the culture, least of all, the Jews, I have no problem with it either.
On a very personal level, I disagree with the practice, but that's because I have a right to do so, and it's only the practice I am objecting to.
:^)
Statistically, there hasn't been any convincing argument for circumcision as a benefit, health-wise.
In Europe, barring the Muslims and the Jews, barely anyone performs this. In the US, it is a widespread practice.
But the rates of infection and the like are near identical, if not lower, in Europe, IIRC.
I wonder how long it'll be before some adult malcontent sues his parents, or the hospital where he was circumcised...
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.