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.
Good question!
Second, it was my understanding that muslims do NOT circumsize as was the difference between Abraham's children being jews. Am I incorrect?
I have read that Muslims do, see http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/QLRC/02.html
You object to circumcisions being done to babies...may I ask why?
>>>I agree. Leave the kid alone. He can decide for himself when he attains the age of majority.>>>
"She says two doctors recommended the procedure for health reasons."
Ohh goody, another one who didn't read the article!
See post 39.
Maybe she just wants to make sure her son is acceptable to the likes of sandbar
Maybe she just wants to make sure her son is acceptable to the likes of sandbar
"If it wasn't done at birth. leave it alone."
Hey, it can't be any worse than getting your tonsils out.
>>>If it wasn't done at birth. leave it alone.>>>
"She says two doctors recommended the procedure for health reasons."
And yet another commenting without reading the article.
While not common, infections and even major loss of penis tissue occurs, which has resulted in attempted male to female sex surgery.
Any kid who has the end of his penis whacked off should get to sue the doctor and any medical facility; and the maker of any device used, or A LOT of money.
Have you always been a sadist?
I think you are arguing with me and I don't know why?
>>>Yes, I agree eight years old is a little late, which is why I asked if they numb the area.>>>
I would imagine at 8, it would be an outpatient surgery with some form of anesthethia (sp), but the article states that two doctors have recommended it for health reasons. It ain't for looks, it's medical.
It appears most people have not read the article. This is why I hate Headline news and the USA Today. Most people are too busy (cough, cough lazy) to read the entire article and get their news from a carefully written and biased headline.
Sorry dude.. things are moving fast, and I picked the wrong target.
Does this mean you are in favor of the circumcision of other people's sons?
Because it is absolutely unecessary. I just cannot imagine putting a baby through that kind of pain for what amount to aesthetic reasons.
>>>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.
You can do something because the Bible tells you to, or you can wait for the final science to come in and give its verdict. Same result!
errrr....Michael Jackson?
Let's get something straight here smartass, I was circumcised at that age. Now, I don't need to read the article.
To coin a phrase, find a box, jump up and kiss my shiny ass.
Oh, since you're so educated, don't end a sentence with a preposition.
Of is a preposition, and since you're the expert on genital mutilation, it could explain why you probably shyed away from P.E. in school.
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.