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.
OK... save it. And stop wasting my time.
You're obviously a woman, and an ignorant one at that.
Buh bye...
And Hilltop is a blowhard who cannot let little things like facts get in the way of a good, self-pitying rant.
You're so worked up about this, it makes one wonder if your little foreskin is bronzed and mounted in a shrine on your mantel, so that you can bring it fresh flowers every day...
See post #236 to prove my point about the extreme (mutilation) word usage I spoke of, haha.
Or gosh, perhaps she's lived long enough to know that when you want something, it's not that hard to find a doctor who will recommend it.
Another poster mentioned a newspaper article where they had expanded to say "recurrent infections." I would imagine that for that particular reason, other solutions are also available - such as improved hygiene, and circumcision was just an option to make hygiene easier.
"for health reasons" and "recommended by doctors" means squat and I know and admire a lot of physicians. They aren't all experts in all areas, though.
Sandbar...I agree. I prefer my man to be cut. But hey, each to his/her own right.>>>
Yep, I'm sure there are a few women who are the other way, but what the hey, there is someone for everyone, haha.
This is all tied to a basic responsibility of having a penis. Dont put it where its not supposed to go, and you have to keep it clean. If you dont wash it regularly , its gonna get infected. If you dont wash it regularly, especially after sex with an infected person, you have a larger chance of getting infected.
>>>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.>>>
That logic word you used. Exactly! If this case had been decided before (as Chiapet and AntiGuv would have us to believe that this case is a different case), then there WOULD be precedent. It is obvious that the Superior court got referred to the Supreme court, which is where the case is now. Not a lawyer, but I cannot see how it is not the same case. Plus the story (exact same divorce story even?!) and ages/timeline add up.
Thanks, I was gettting there.
My guess is phimosis, trust me thats what it usually is. I have to say though, I've seen many elderly men who were unable to clean themselves in that area due to their lack of independence, the uncirc'ed versions that had poor hygienal habits are more difficult to clean up then the circ'ed versions. Just something to think about.
>>>OK... save it. And stop wasting my time.
You're obviously a woman, and an ignorant one at that.
Buh bye...>>>
Yep, a woman, but not so ignorant.
Go worship your foreskin and we'll end this debacle at that. K?
"I have to say though, I've seen many elderly men who were unable to clean themselves in that area due to their lack of independence, the uncirc'ed versions that had poor hygienal habits are more difficult to clean up then the circ'ed versions."
OK, if that isn't enough to promote circumcision, nothing is!
Galatians 5
Paul also said that women were less than men. Not too fond of that apostle.
---
So you one of those libs that cherry picks from the Bible, taking only what suits your argument and dismissing the rest?
Very telling. Your penchant for mutilated genitals and your desire to dismiss authors of the Bible because they don't agree with your own desires says mountains about your character.
I know, and believe me, I went around in circles with this on those pregnancy boards, the staunch anti circ crowd was not happy with my argument. Without trying to gross anyone out, if you don't clean under there for weeks on end, well a whole lotta gunk can accumulate in between the two areas of skin and can potentially result in sores similar to bedsores. HMM, weren't we just talking about the pain factor? Imagine how that must feel? I've seen it more times as an RN to convince myself that if I ever had a son, there would be no way I would ever want him subjected to this potential scenario if he were ever unable to care for himself.
In your world, circumcision equals mutilation/maiming? Uh oh, does that mean you can collect disability?
Every circ'd man I know is perfectly healthy and fine.
Stop it, you're KILLING me!! ;)
Thanks for the info, but
EWWWWWWWWWWW!
>>>So you one of those libs that cherry picks from the Bible, taking only what suits your argument and dismissing the rest?>>>
Not a lib and I'm insulted by your accusation!! Just because I disagree with you doesnt' mean I'm a lib Hannity.
Furthermore, we can all cherrypick from the Bible. You want me to find that letter to Dr. Laura about selling your daughters into slavery, etc...? I DO disagree with Paul. I'm entitled to that opinion.
>>>Very telling. Your penchant for mutilated genitals and your desire to dismiss authors of the Bible because they don't agree with your own desires says mountains about your character.>>>
My penchant for mutilated genitals...? You are laughable.
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.