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.
>>>The assault on circumcision is really an assault on the American way of life.>>>
LOL!! Long live America!
I'd like to refer you to post #130 :)
This is ridiculous. The kid is way too old. Probably plays with himself by now. I can't imagine that having his privates sliced up would be anything other than totally devastating. The mom's an idiot. At this point, she should just wait and let the kid decide for himself when he's older. Good thing the judge isn't a woman.
Since when the humans know more about the Human body, than the almighty GOD who created it!
>>>It's like your local Chevy dealer recommending that you buy a new car.
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>>>
Wow, you must really like me to keep bringing my name up in so many posts. So ya ready to go get that ole crusty skin lopped off yet? I'll date ya.
The mother claims she has two doctor's that state the procedure is needed for medical reasons. I would like to hear the doctor's testimony before I call the mother an idiot.
I never argue with fanatics. It is a waste of time and energy.
>>>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.>>>
Yes, but wouldn't you want to know those 'health reasons' before making such a solid judgement?
But actually, liberals are usually in the trend of wanting boys to be UNCIRCUMSIZED. Of course the femi-libs also think tampons are mens way of stiffling the flow or some such nonsense, so you can't be a judge of their rational.
WELL SAID!!!
The Bible specifically tells us that circumcision is no longer necessary. One of the Apostles referred to it as the "yoke our fathers were not able to bear", and declined to compel the Gentile converts to circumcision. Do you doubt the Apostolic word?
Only if ya get that nasty clit hood lopped off.
But this would be a pediatrician not an OB/GYN.
If she is taking her eight year old son to an OB/GYN then there is far more going on the circumcision.
I am completely in favor of marital fidelity. However since the decision is usually whether the procedure should be done on an infant, predicting and insuring this future behavior is highly problematic. The child may someday go through a rebellious stage or may simply fail to resist a temptation. Furthermore, even if they are perfectly monogamous their spouse may be raped, scratched, transfused, or otherwise infected and thus pose a risk even in an otherwise monogamous relationship.
No need to mutilate boys.
This is gross hyperbole. I have discussed this with several men who had adult circumcisions and none of them said they had any decrease in sexual feeling and none of them regretted their circumcision. The epidemiological benefits I quoted clearly outweigh the costs.
Not around here. Just the opposite.
>>>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.>>>
Oh really. So the ones stating that it's too late at the age of 8 (so the kid doesn't get to have a medical procedure because he's 8?) or that it's revenge of the ex-bitch, etc... None of that has to do with them not reading the article?
Riiiiggghhhtt.
Then why did God repeal circumicision in the days of the early Church?
>>>The Bible specifically tells us that circumcision is no longer necessary. One of the Apostles referred to it as the "yoke our fathers were not able to bear", and declined to compel the Gentile converts to circumcision. Do you doubt the Apostolic word?>>>
What apostle and what verse?
That's also the reason for 99% of the times I got thrown out of class in high school.
Dinner's ready. Go look it up yourself. Book of acts, somewhere, I believe.
>>>If it's all the same to you, I'd prefer to make the Second Amendment the centerpiece of our national identity -- not circumcision.>>>
Oooh the land ooof the freeee, and the home of the cuuuuutttttt. ;o)
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.