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.
No, I haven't read the transcripts, nor did I claim to. But I also never said the kid should or should not have the procedure done. Instead, I said I would want to hear the testimony of the doctors before I made a decision.
You, however, have decided that the kid should not have the procedure done, even if medically necessary because you have the procedure done to yourself at the age of eight.
If you are unable to defend you positions, just go away instead of insulting other people.
>>>Sorry, but cutting off the foreskin at age eight is not a routine or necessary operation.
You obviously never had a foreskin...>>>
"She says two doctors recommended the procedure for health reasons."
And yet another one who didn't bother to read the article.
Holy cow...is that going to be the uniform of the day?
Can't be a conservative unless you've been sliced?
Most of the organizations I've joined just ask for dues?
What a silly way of deciding the matter. Jesus was circumcised, and so is Osama bin Ladin. Big whoop.
If you don't know then there is no way to explain it to you.
It's more like your local Chevy dealer selling you a car and then trying to sell you a muffler chop - ya know, so it makes a cool sound to attract the likes of sandbar
>>>I think it is an unwritten rule that the posters with the most strident and vitriolic opinions have not read one word beyond the headline and first paragraph of the story. It is actually kind of amusing.>>>
LOL! I think you are correct. It does seem to be a trend.
How's it going IPod? I've seen you post on quite a few threads lately. We have must have the same interests and click the same articles.
Please explain it to me... don't newborns have the same nerve endings as 8 y/os ?
I'm not up for a fight tonight with any true believers, and this really isn't my subject, but I find it interesting that so many people seem to have latched onto the theory that circumcision prevents HIV infection. There is evidence for and against.
Some of the case against the theory can be found here:
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html
Among the evidence cited is a study of HIV infected American servicemen, that concluded:
Although there may be other medical or cultural reasons for male circumcision, it is not associated with HIV or STI prevention in this U.S. military population.Personally, I'm more interested in the theory that lack of circumcision causes global warming.
And yet another one who didn't bother to read the article.
Oh, I read the article all right. "Health reasons" are very vague. It could be anything from a rare condition such as phimosis (which WOULD be a good reason to circumcise), or it could be some dumb liberal doctors that think circumcision is the only way to reduce STDs. Until they're more specific as to what those "health reasons" are, I remain skeptical.
I forgot the "tongue in cheek" < / > tag ;)
but I am serious about there being a definite benefit of setting America apart. Hey, we're Americans. We don't use the metric system, and we circumcise our kids...
America.. F$*! Yeah!
Only if they would be the ones doing the surgery. Since she had a second opinion I would venture to say that at least one if not both have no financial stake in the matter.
There are medical conditions where it is recommended but not necessary and others where it could be vital. I would like to know which it is.
møøslimbs circumcise. At age five.
Like I said.
"She says two doctors recommended the procedure for health reasons."
And yet another one who didn't bother to read the article.
I don't think it's a matter of people not reading the article. I think that you, on the other hand, are reading WAY too much into that one sentence. "She says two doctors recommended the procedure for health reasons" could mean absolutely nothing significant at all.
I figured you'd give up the argument.
>>>Let's get something straight here smartass, I was circumcised at that age. Now, I don't need to read the article.>>>
You don't need to read the article? You were circumsized at that age so you don't need to find out that there are probably (as stated IN THE ARTICLE) medical reasons for the surgery? Oh wait, you were circumsized at 8, so you are the all knowing, all seeing. I see.
>>>To coin a phrase, find a box, jump up and kiss my shiny ass.>>>
Umm, ok. I guess.
>>>Oh, since you're so educated, don't end a sentence with a preposition.>>>
Oh my gosh!! You know you have someone when they resort to being the grammar police. Thanks for the English lesson Bub.
>>>Of is a preposition, and since you're the expert on genital mutilation, it could explain why you probably shyed away from P.E. in school.>>>
What the heck does this mean? Are you off your meds or something?
BTW Officer Grammer Policeman, you mispelled "SHYED". Please turn in your badge on your way out.
If it's all the same to you, I'd prefer to make the Second Amendment the centerpiece of our national identity -- not circumcision.
The OB/GYN here gets a nice little extra fee for the procedure. When my son was born we had already told the doctor 'no' on the procedure. But moments after he was born they were already gung ho to do it until I got their attention and stopped them.
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.