Oregon woman used box cutter and pliers to 'circumcise' three-month-old son at home

dailymail.co.uk ^ | April 11, 2011 | Paul Thompson

[Free ThinkerNY]

A mother is to go on trial for assault after allegedly using a box cutter and a pair of pliers to circumcise her three-month-old son.

Keemonta Peterson told police she had watched YouTube videos on how to carry out the surgical procedure.

The mother-of-four is alleged to have left her baby son bleeding for two hours before finally calling emergency services.

Peterson, 29, said she was inspired to carry out the DIY operation at her home in Portland, Oregon, after reading the Bible.

According to an arrest report Peterson began the operation at midnight using a box cutter knife as a scalpel and the pliers as a tourniquet.

When the bleeding would not stop on the botched operation she tried to stitch up the wound while her distressed 13 year old son watched.

After two hours of ‘uncontrolled’ bleeding Peterson called paramedics.

Her son, who has not been named, was listed in critical condition but has since made a full recovery following the October incident.

Following her arrest Peterson told detectives she decided on the DIY circumcision as hospitals in Portland will not carry out the operation of boys older than four weeks.

Peterson was arrested last month and charged with first and second degree assault.

[baddog 219]

[Mountain Bike Vomit Carnage]

And some women in the future will thank you.

I don't know many women who thank men for cervical cancer.

[patriot08]

.

If it makes no difference that a circumcised penis IS easier to keep clean and that a circumcised penis is more pleasing aesthetically (and boys don’t need to feel ‘different, but fit in with their peers) then how about this:

UNCIRCUMCISED MEN ARE ABOUT TWICE AS LIKELY TO BE INFECED WITH HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS (HPV) AND PASS IT ALONG TO SEXUAL PARTNERS, RESULTING IN HIGHER CERVICAL CANCER RATES in regions where the majority of men are uncircumcised [source: Infectious Diseases Society of America].
It also appears that circumcision helps protect against infection from chlamydia and syphilis [source: JAMA
http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=circumcision.htm&url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081007172820.htm

Recent studies have shown that circumcision can dramatically reduce the rate of HIV infection. According to these studies, A CIRCUMCISED MAN IS 60 percent LESS LIKELY TO CONTACT HIV than an uncircumcised man [source: Timbert].
http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=circumcision.htm&url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081007172820.htm

(This holds true only in the case of female-to-male transmission — circumcision hasn’t been seen to influence the rate of male-to-male HIV transmission [source: JAMA].)
http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=circumcision.htm&url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081007172820.htm

_________________

Mayo Clinic
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/circumcision/MY01023/DSECTION=why-its-done

>Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The overall risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections may be more common in uncircumcised males.
Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.

>Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis may be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can also lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.

>Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it’s less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.

>Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Safe sexual practices remain essential, but circumcised men may have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections — including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

.

[kabumpo]

If that myth were true the entire female population of Europe (minus Jews) prior to 1960 woyld have gotten it.

[xrmusn]

See, if Obummmer Care were in place, this wouldn’t have happened.

It is the R’s fault, plain and simple.

Sarc/Sarc....is that really necessary???

[dayglored]

> If it makes no difference that a circumcised penis IS easier to keep clean and that a circumcised penis is more pleasing aesthetically (and boys don’t need to feel ‘different, but fit in with their peers) then how about this:...

Let's agree on a number of fairly obvious true things, many of which you stated or implied:

1. Circumcision removes a part of the body that is a normal functional organ. The foreskin is the only non-regenerative body organ that is regularly, ritually removed in otherwise civilized modern countries (although I've read arguments for tonsils along the same lines).

2. An uncircumcised foreskin is more trouble to clean than than a bald dickhead (the unprotected glans). Young boys must be taught how to do it, and before that, their parents have to clean it for them.

3. An unclean foreskin is very likely to accumulate smegma that a bald dickhead will not. Smegma, a combination of shed cells, oils, and moisture, provides lubrication for the glans and helps keep it clean, but also can act to accumulate bacteria. Smegma is normal and nutural, but too much, hanging around for too long, is a problem.

4. Risk of picking up, carrying, and transmitting diseases under the foreskin is statistically significant.

5. If you have a foreskin, it is very important to keep yourself clean.

Every single study that concludes that removing the foreskin is more healthy than leaving it alone, ALSO concludes that it is NOT the foreskin tissue itself that is the problem, but rather the area under it, which tends to accumulate excess smegma if you don't keep it clean.

So, DUH, keep it clean. Yeah, we all agree that keeping it that clean is a pain in ... neck.

Regardless of the health argument, my point was:
LEAVE IT ALONE UNTIL THE OWNER OF THE FORESKIN DECIDES IT'S TOO MUCH TROUBLE TO CLEAN IT AND WANTS IT REMOVED.

That's all. It's a simple matter of personal privacy and liberty regarding one's own body.

I will never understand why you pro-circumcision folks, especially conservatives, can't see that simple point. Oh, well.

[Gondring]

And some women in the future will thank you.

'zactly right!

[Razz Barry]

Peterson, 29, said she was inspired to carry out the DIY operation at her home in Portland, Oregon, after reading the Bible. According to an arrest report Peterson began the operation at midnight using a box cutter knife as a scalpel and the pliers as a tourniquet.

When the bleeding would not stop on the botched operation she tried to stitch up the wound while her distressed 13 year old son watched.

Assuming the 13 year old is her oldest, she started reproducing at sixteen. Just another case of where those who would be good parents are taxed to the point they can't afford to have children, so trash like this can. Now that they outnumber us, can we stop paying the dregs to breed?

[kalee]

I hope she never sees those children again.

[Tainan]

[patriot08]

.

‘That’s all. It’s a simple matter of personal privacy and liberty regarding one’s own body.’

It ceases to be ‘personal privacy’ and ‘liberty’ when scientists have proven uncircumcised males spread disease
to innocent partners.

UNCIRCUMCISED MEN ARE ABOUT TWICE AS LIKELY TO BE INFECED WITH HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS (HPV) AND PASS IT ALONG TO SEXUAL PARTNERS, RESULTING IN HIGHER CERVICAL CANCER RATES in regions where the majority of men are uncircumcised [source: Infectious Diseases Society of America].
It also appears that circumcision helps protect against infection from chlamydia and syphilis [source: JAMA
http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=circumcision.htm&url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases

.

[SunkenCiv]

“told police she had watched YouTube videos on how to carry out the surgical procedure”

Don’t knock YouTube, that was my resource for building my thousand-MPG fuel system for my car.

[dayglored]

> It ceases to be ‘personal privacy’ and ‘liberty’ when scientists have proven uncircumcised males spread disease to innocent partners.

For some percentage of males, that's true.

So if that's your position, then at least be consistent. Here's what you should propose:

• Some males impregnate unwilling females. Therefore, cut off all boys' penises, since some will become rapists.

• Some people, mostly males, will become thieves. Therefore, cut off everybody's hands.

• Some people, mostly stupid ones, will vote for idiotic or dangerous politicians. Therefore, kill all people with an IQ of (say) less than 100.

Come on. Your position is untenable, based on that argument.

Why not just admit that what you said initially is the real reason:

"...a circumcised penis is more pleasing aesthetically (and boys don’t need to feel different, but fit in with their peers)..."

That's your real motivation. Your personal preference (which you are entitled to, but not to inflict it on others), and peer pressure, which only exists as long as you continue to inflict this practice on those too young and weak to defend themselves and make their own choice.

Really, now, that's quite enough.

[patriot08]

That’s an unrealistic and pretty immature analogy.
The fact is, uncircumcised males DO spread disease to innocent partners.
That is more than reason enough to circumcise.