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.
Sandbar is right. The decision not to circumcize is huge amongst the birkenstock wearing, no leg shaving vegan crowd.
Paul also said that women were less than men. Not too fond of that apostle.
Actually this article is even vaguer than the first. Is the procedure to prevent further infections or just possible infections? Is the child pre-disposed to a certain type of infection? I would still like to hear the doctor's testimony.
I read the article; I just don't believe the mom's story.
Repeal means interdiction, therefore my point...do not mess with human body, as GOD intended to be.
As a side bar, how did GOD repealed the circumcisions and thru "WHO".
I'm an RN and it is actually done at various ages for various reasons. When it's a younger boy, such as the above, typically it's done due to phimosis, a condition in which the foreskin never retracted like it should have as the infant boy gets older. Normally, for older men, it's done for cosmetic reasons. Either way, they are ALL performed under general anethesia. Our OR schedule typically has 1-2 scheduled per week.
Bookmark and bump to all that!
I would still like to hear the doctor's testimony as well, but it would take a genuine "necessity" to change my mind, and this sure doesn't sound like one. If this is in fact a persistent problem, then teach the kid to clean himself. Billions of men have seemed to grasp the concept well enough over the millennia.....
And lots aren't. From what I've read thus far, you seem to be highly offended that other parents are making or have made different choices than you've made.
Wow, it's amazing how people pick and choose what they want to support their position.
Hmmm, seems that THIS articles states at the age of three, he had two infections that left him swollen and in pain. As well as painful urination. Of course to hear AntiGov's article tell it, it's all preventative.
http://www.cirp.org/news/star-ledger12-03-00/
See my previous post, it's performed under general anesthesia if the patient is not an infant.
No, I'm a Gentile, really. I've got hard evidence, right here in my lap. :-)
That's a kind of mind-boggling response. . . You seemed pretty gung-ho about the standards of Christianity in your earlier post. So shall we just edit out the Pauline epistles from Christian doctrine because you don't like him?
The fact is that under the New Covenant Christians are not required to be circumcised, and it was rather actively discouraged in the early church.
Having just had a baby and bring a participant in pregnancy message boards, this is a huge hot topic subject. The anti crowd will swear the sex is better with an "intact" penis as they like to call it ( as if a circ'ed penis is not intact to the body?) Personally speaking, I am with you. :) I am also the mom of three girls, so this was a moot point in those debates.
BTW, that article link wasn't TO you as far as disagreeing with you. I just wanted to include you in the info since Cha Cha Chiapet decided to link you a vague article.
Is this the same kid?
You know, it's entirely possible that the problems is simply that the boy lives with his mother instead of his dad, and she is either unable, unwilling, or just to darn uncomfortable with the topic to teach him to clean himself properly.
You do realize how stunningly ridiculous you look, don't you sandbar, that the link you just posted is to a different case in NJ and not to the IL case we've been discussing in this thread?
Heh, thanks =-)
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.