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.
"(ironically because it was promoted originally as preventing) masturbation."
I always avoided masturbation because I was afraid of hairy palms.
Well I'll be darned. Thanks for the info!
An article in the Chicago Tribune today suggested that the circumcision was needed to prevent 'recurring infections'
Also, they didn't name the parents in order to protect the child's privacy
That has to be a first
My husband was in the room when the doctore performed the circumcision and our son didn't make a sound. They put a little band aid on it, and we brought him home.
Just about all the women I know prefer non-circumcised. I guess it depends on who you hang out with.
If you're gonna dip,
you must clip.
(apologies to the late Johnny Cochran)
I'm not certain why you are referring me to post #39. Is it the quote from the mother where she says two doctors recommended it for health reasons? That could mean anything or nothing. She could have taken him in for his yearly check-up and the doctor could have said, "By the way, your son isn't circumcized, you know, it's healthier for him to get it done." The article doesn't give any clue that the boy was actually having health problems.
"They put a little band aid on it"
Just for the sake of your son, when you tell that story, make it a BIG band-aid.
Yowsa!! And it seems they do it at an older age, without any medicine!!
Ug.
Because you were circumcised at the age of eight another child who may need the procedure because of medical reasons should not get the procedure? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning.
"Leave this boy alone."
I agree.
I agree- let's grab a beer and sit back!
(Personally, I would want my future wife to decide. However that's rather impossible to guess her wishes when you are both babies and haven't met. I do plan to meet this woman any day now, however... very soon, I am sure....)
>>>The mother wants to have her 8 year old son circumsised? I object to doing it to babies, but at least they don't remember it. An 8 year old boy though, if it happens, you know he'll never forget that one. Geez, does his mom really hate him (or her ex-husband) that much? What a bitch.
Maybe she just wants to make sure her son is acceptable to the likes of sandbar>>>
Or gosh, maybe you could actually READ the article and find out that *gasp* doctors are recommending it MEDICALLY.
It is unnecessary (like plastic surgery), unless your the type that enjoys surgery just for the heck of it.
It is done with no anesthesia (when done at birth) and the child is left writhing in pain.
Aside from some cherry-picked statistics that anyone can conjure up, nobody has ever given me a good reason why is is a necessity (and if you're gonna go carving on my kid it had better be a damn important reason).
"Just about all the women I know prefer non-circumcized. I guess it depends on who you hand out with."
I guess so. I know of no women...other than you now who prefer's a non-circumcized man. In fact, I had a friend who was grossed out by a boyfriend who wasn't cut...it didn't last long.
Okay...a HUGE bandaid. LOL
The drop is most likely due to the influx of illegal aliens, as well as all the leftist granola types who think we should be more like Europe.
>>>Have you always been a sadist?>>>
Hmmm, not to my knowledge. I suppose you are too, if you ever took a girl's virginity.
Both of my nephews were circumcized. They both screamed their little heads off, and my sister was so upset by their reactions that she cried for days. However, my brother-in-law insisted that it had to be done.
Bacause you assumed that the mother wants her son circumcised because she hates the kid or the ex-husband. Since she claims it is because the doctor says it is needed for medical reasons, I would like to hear the doctor's testimony before I conclude she is a sadist.
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.