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.
Post 7 talked about the fairly obvious to expect and well-recorded benefits of male circumcision wrt/ AIDS/HIV in Africa. The statistics on it are pretty. In any event, just the support of those studies alone make a nullity of Chia's absolute dismissal of any reasonable claim for any but a cosmetic benefit from the removal of the foreskin. Even if one applies the discounting of some plausible rebuttal in linked in that 130-whatever post.
Reasonable people can agree to disagree and all that. But Chia's "absolute" dismissal is unreasonable.
And since those AIDS studies, other studies have come out that show that MALE circumcision correlates strongly with reduction in the occurence genital warts (HPV) in the female. And a women's genital warts make her far more likely to get AIDS from an infected partner.
Maybe Chia doesn't consider male-female sex important, or doesn't consider females important. I don't know, but Chia's abrupt and total mocking of the procedure is surely anti-female.
And I must say, being a caregiver for my father with Alzheimers/Parkinsons disease and having to bath him regularly, I'm GLAD he's circumsized. I do NOT want to think of having to retract, clean, etc...
Ugh.
Yep, He put it there for several reasons. It's not "extra" like the skin under an old lady's arm.
Anti-Guv posted a link showing this case was withdrawn and hence not decided in court. Also the parents ages don't mesh, and original article say US court not the Supreme Court. I don't know if this is the same case, and it appears it may not be.
And for the record, I am for the father in this case. Eight years old to too old for the procedure without far more risks -- it is best done at eight days. The boy can wait until he is older and chose for himself.
Another sad case of the usual idiocy of divorce and all the miseries it dumps upon the children.
It has been the norm to use a local anesthetic for newborns since I was in my residency, 23 years ago. As a medical student, I saw it done regularly without anesthesia, but that is not the usual practice anymore.
You can chop of a baby's earlobes too and it will grow up "perfectly healthy and fine" by your standards.
Would you call chopping off your babies earlobes mutilation? I bet you would. Why? Because circumcision is the only instance where the ordinary meaning of the term is held to not apply.
As I've said before, if you told people that you were merely going to pierce your babies ears they'd think you're some kind of freak. But mutilating your son's penis is tolerated, or even celebrated.
Why? Barbaric custom. Period. There's no reason but that for the singular exception.
Sheesh! I hate typos. Time to go take something for this half-blinding migraine!
My grandson made just a little squeak at his bris, but he screamed so intensely while my daughter was cutting his fingernails that I was afraid he was going to faint or throw up.
I'm circumcised, my son is not.
While HIV and other disease may be a risk, from what I hear sex is 100x better. Men who have been circumcised later in life say it's like having sex with your elbow compared to being uncircumcised.
Well, after many years of exhaustive personal research, I can state with the utmost certainty, that myth is BUSTED!!
Eight years old - What the hell? It's a feaking mutilation at this point.
Circumcision is a $400M business in the US. Of course doctors are going to order it, it puts more money in their pockets. There is no need for this procedure unless there are problems with hygiene, urination, or erection. This is not Africa, that continent's statistics do not apply. We have access to medicine, we are hygienic, and there is no heterosexual HIV epidemic in the USA (no matter WHAT the liberal/queer media says). As to circumcising a boy so that he'll have a penis that looks nice to women or other males in a locker room, give me a break! Imagine if we routinely performed totally unnecessary surgery on our little girls for social and/or aesthetic purposes. People would be marching in the streets.
The epidemiological benefits I quoted clearly outweigh the costs
=======
if that were the case, every health association in the world would recommend circumcision.
as it is, no reputable health org recommends it.
" Men who have been circumcised later in life say it's like having sex with your elbow"
Who said they had sex with my elbow?
"I'm sure most muslim / arab women who have had their labs removed at childhood are fine too."
You're comparing apples and oranges. Removing the foreskin is not analogous to female circumcision.
"The point is, you have women on here extolling the value of one penis over another, preferring one person over another based on a mans penis. Thats a bit too liberal for me. Would it be ok if I said women who had labia were garbage?"
No, the point is that this was initially posted in response to those who were declaring that circumcision was barbaric mutilation. It was not expressed for the purpose of titilation. And again, I don't understand the analogy between circumcision and women who have labia (all women, unless they have a birth defect).
"There is nothing Christian about circumcision, it is a Jewish and muslim thing"
The account of Abraham's circumcision is listed in the OT of the Bible, which Christians consider to be God's Word.
"I'm a Catholic. My church does not tell me to circumcise my kids, though I do know may Catholics who claim that they "heard somewhere" that it says they should in the Bible. Yes, the old Testament. That was part of the old covenant."
So we can throw away the OT? Good, my Bible was too heavy anyway.
"Those who accept Jesus, also accept the new covenant. So the religious argument don't fly."
There is nowhere in the NT where we are forbidden to circumsize. We are warned to not use the obedience to the act of circumcision as our salvation.
"The medical argument don't fly, as research shows that there are as many complications from it as there are from infections after wards."
For every study against circumsion, there is one that extols the benefits of having it done. Kind of like you can find an "expert" to testify for any situation under the sun. I'm sure there are those who have suffered complications from being circ'd, just as there could be complications from ANY procedure (having your ears pierced). Personally, I'm going with what I have experienced- circumcision is the right thing for my family. YOU do what you want.
"Also, when we had our kids, our HMO did not cover the 450 bucks for it because it was cosmetic. So, even insurance companies don't want to pay for it"
But they DO pay for abortions. Using the procedures insurance companies pay for as an excuse for righteousness can be pretty tricky.
"But puleeze, do not degenerate this fine site into some filthy DU thread about how a woman prefers the TASTE of a cut or uncut penis."
OMGosh, perhaps your mind is in the gutter.
"My family values personality, character and integrity over a penis, and the way some of the girls are carrying on about how they have dumped, will dump and hate men who are uncircumcised is foolish and very unbecoming of a Conservative lady."
Is that a complete sentence? I don't understand what you are saying.
"Save it for your dinner party with Whoopie Goldberg and the Clintoons, it would be more appropriate there I'm sure."
I'd rather be circumcized than have dinner with these people (and I'm a girl!) :)
She claims two doctors "recommended it"...Now that would be back in, say when, 1997?!?
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.