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.
I have to question that one. Churches that support sodomy and abortion generally shrivel up and die fairly quickly. The morally straight refugees flock to either Catholic or Orthodox churches -- or Evangelical Megachurches -- leaving the sodomites and babykillers alone at their desecrated altars.
Well... in rare cases of deformity (phimosis), it is a benefit. And if someone is foolish enough to be promiscuous, circumcision would reduce their risks. (How's that for the "safe sex" speech: "Son, if you're gonna fool around, you gotta get clipped!")
However, most of the risks cited in post 7 are reduced to ZERO by monogamy. Even the penile cancer issue, when the research is finally in, will almost certainly be found to be due to HPV -- the same virus family that causes veneral warts and cervical cancer -- and monogamy protects against HPV too.
The bottom line is, if the kid is righteous, he doesn't need circumcision. And if he's not, he's taking his chances, circumcised or not. Interesting that this is true both spiritually and epidemiologically.
I'm shocked. I've never heard of such a thing. If your brother et al are representative, then I predict eventual collapse, a la the Anglicans.
My megachurch is totally opposite on every all of those points. Even the Catholic thing... it's the most Catholic-friendly Protestant church I've ever attended; in fact Jim Caviezel, who lives nearby, was invited as a guest preacher one Sunday.
I should note, my pastor publicly condemned the idea of "closing on Christmas Sunday", an abomination spawned at WillowCreek. He said, "Some churches are closing on Christmas --we're adding extra services on Christmas", followed by the usual call to invite unbelievers to hear the gospel message at the one time of year that most of them are willing to listen.
As I already posted to you in post #153, I am completely in favor of marital fidelity. However, 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.
Even the penile cancer issue, when the research is finally in, will almost certainly be found to be due to HPV
Unless you have some qualification in this area you can demonstrate, this kind of speculation isn't really a valid argument in a discussion like this.
The bottom line is, if the kid is righteous, he doesn't need circumcision.
Please see above.
And if he's not, he's taking his chances, circumcised or not.
True, but the research I linked shows that circumcision significantly reduces those chances.
You're in good company. Many men in Africa don't like uncircumcised women.
You're incorrect. Muslims do circumcise their sons. In fact about two thirds of the men in the world who were circumcised as children were circumcised because there parents are Muslims.
Cutting off a boy's foreskin to reduce the risk of cancer of the penis makes about as much sense as cutting off a girl's labia to reduce the risk of cancer of the vulva.
Cutting off a girl's labia greatly reduces a woman's rise of cancer of the vulva. More women in the USA die of cancer of the vulva than men die of cancer of the penis.
If you are Christian, the Book of Acts chapter 15 in the New Testament tells you that circumcision is not a requirement for Christian males.
Every professional medical organization in the world that has a policy on circumcision says there is no medical indication for infant circumcision.
Any woman who turns down a man because he has an intact foreskin is as shallow as a man who turns down a woman because she does not have perfectly shaped breasts.
Understatement of the year.
It's been my experience that whenever a church shows even a SMALL deviation like that, better stand back 'cause it'll come crashing down sooner or later.
>>>yes, removing the foreskin IS akin to female circumcision, both are done for hygiene, both are done by muslims and jews, and both are done for cosmetic reasons.>>>
You are incorrect. The female circumcision is to remove sexual satisfaction by the female, to keep them from becoming sexual creatures, which in the muslim/african world is just awful.
>>>If sandbar's friends ever fantasize about that "hot Latin lover" or those Euro "Favio" types you see in those romance novels, they'll be highly disappointed and "grossed out" when they discover that those guys are uncircumcized.>>>
Good thing I don't fantasize about crap like that then. Boy, you are out of touch with reality and women if you believe that alot of women like that type. And it's FaBio.
>>>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.
You're in good company. Many men in Africa don't like uncircumcised women.>>>
I'll remember that on my next trip to Africa. NOT.
One of my sons, at age 6, had to be "re-circumcised". It turns out, "re-circumcision" is very common today due to complications from circumcision. Some kids have to be circumcised a third time, too, when complications arise again.
They put him under general anesthesia. He was in pain and couldn't walk for at least a week. He couldn't even put his legs together as he was lying in bed. So, now I know better, and one of the biggest regrets of my life is saying "OK" to circumcision in the first place.
Btw, the article says: "She says two doctors recommended the procedure for health reasons."
The terms "health" and "medical" are not synonymous. It sounds like the mother found doctors who simply support the idea of circumcision. I spoke with two urologists when looking for surgery for my son, and both told me "off the record" that they don't believe circumcision is necessary and that "off the record" they'd advise against it. But, what they normally do is provide parents with the pro vs. con literature and then stand back and let them make the decision because both told me they see it as a "religious" decision.
Circumcision has been practiced for thousands of years, and the overwhelming majority of those boys grew up to be perfectly fine.
Is it necessary? That depends on your religious beliefs. Will it cause permanent emotional and psychological harm to the boy? Nope.
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.