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.
Oh I've heard the 'intact' crowd refer to a cut man as the mutilated penis. LOL
I have one son and he is cut and thanks goodness. Less trouble to keep clean I guess. Three daughters too, so not an issue, haha. But you would think that because I dare utter my preference to a cut man, I was the devil incarnate to 'intact' men around here.
((What matters is the condition of your heart, not your p#nis.))
Sorry, I should have posted more there. I was meaning exactly that.
Gee, for someone who is such a "you didn't read the article" fanatic, you'd think you would have noticed that the article you just linked to is about an entirely different boy.
How about if it has to be done when he is 24 because of medical reasons.
"Personally, as a woman, I do not like an uncircumsized one and I don't care what the current trend, I know NOT ONE woman who disagrees with me. They'll of course except it in the man they love, but prefer cut."
I also do not know of one woman who disagrees.
>>>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?>>>
Fraid not. Venue change, but it's the same case. The article was posted in 2000, and the boy was three. This boy is now 8. Same case, same situation, ages match up. The article posted today does not mention names. So I guess people in your world don't move over the course of five years or so?
....and I am out of here...I need to get some sleep in order to be able to deal with my own children (girls, thankfully) in the morning. Goodnight.
Well I understand if there is a health concern what has to be done has to be done. It looked like the article was saying that health professionals were recommending it so but it did not say why.
>>>....and I am out of here...I need to get some sleep in order to be able to deal with my own children (girls, thankfully) in the morning. Goodnight.>>>
Night, been fun and hope no hard (no pun intended) feelings.
It just amazes me how many posts this thread got!!
so...heres my 2cents.....
I have two sons who were circumsized just after birth. My husband and I agreed to this for a few reasons. a)tradition(and not ashamed one bit for it) b)my husband is circumsized. c)every single male we knew or were related to were circumsized. d)pediatrician told us of the high rate of infections caused by foreskin not being cleaned properly.
I have no problem with people making the decision to keep the foreskin but I have a HUGE problem with people trying to tell me what I should do with my children.
When my son was circumsized(about 12 years ago) he was numbed before the removal of foreskin. The reason the baby screamed was that he HATED being strapped down for any amount of time.(hey, who doesn't:)
I also have a problem with this line "why have a completely unnecessary procedure done on a child?"
well...how about hair cuts? completely unnecessary...pierced ears? unnecessary....the shaving of any body hair? unnecessary etc... you see my point. There are many many things that as "people" we do to ourselves and our children that are unnecesary but we do to fit into society. This is not a bad thing.
To those who say: why don't we snip the clitoris hood and see how that goes over? well....since the clitoris hood doesn't cause infection or any other health concerns it isn't even comparable.
FYI: in my experience all the women I know prefer clipped. As a matter of fact those few that I know who have come in contact with unclipped find it repulsive and bizarre. And I also have to say that I can't remember the last time I saw an uncircumsized penis in playgirl....i guess we know how the masses really feel.
>>>Gee, for someone who is such a "you didn't read the article" fanatic, you'd think you would have noticed that the article you just linked to is about an entirely different boy.>>>
Nope, same boy. Even same situation with the "prevent future infections" scenario.
Sorry, no sale.
Actually, it's done usually by the OB/GYN. I'm a hospital RN and this is the routine in various hospitals I have worked in. Don't ask why, because I don't know, but a ped would make more sense.
You think this is the same case because of the kid's ages?! LOL!
Here's another article about the NJ case (which was settled with the boy not being circumcised, BTW).
Accord Not to Circumcise Son Still Leaves Heated Legal Debate
You will note that the mother in that case was 32 years old in 2001. You will note that the father was 40 years old in 2001.
In this Illinois case, you will note that the parents are now 31 years old and 49 years old.
FWIW, I am embarrassed for you. I can't imagine how someone can be so hellbent to support genital mutilation that they would lose the ability to reason.
"Isn't eight years old a little late to decide this? I do not blame the dad in this one at all."
Yikes! I agree. At age 8 I'd be more concerned about the pain and discomfort; forget the emotional side of it.
All of these Scriptures are talking about the condition of the HEART of those who are circumcised, they are not forbidding circumcision.
They are merely warnings that salvation does not come through obedience to or the act of circumcision.
I could quote many NT Scriptures that admonish not keeping the law. Does that mean that everything in Deuteronomy should be thrown out? (Most of these laws were for public health reasons.)
Galations 3:23,24 "Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are not longer under the supervision of the law."
The ages do indeed fit, but how do you know it is the same case? It seems logical that this is the same case since the original article I posted stated there is no apparent precedence. If this case was already decided it would appear there indeed is precedence.
Oh, I see what you are saying now. For the 8 year old it would be a general surgeon, since this wouls require booking the OR in the hospital. It's a same day procedure, the boy would have been home that afternoon.
Acts 15:10
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"
Of course... there is debate about whether this refers to circumcision or not.
He or she doesn't know that it's the same case, because it's not. He or she just wanted it to be the same case so badly, that he or she leaped to that conclusion even though the two articles practically screamed out that it was not the same case.
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.