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.
Well according to my husband...my son felt nothing when being clipped.
"I know of no women...other than you now who prefer's a non-circumcized man"
They must be cheese lovers.
My wife wanted me to relay 2 messages:
1. She has no preference one way or the other. (Though I would personally interject that anecdotal evidence seems to suggest a preference contrary to yours).
2. If you have this done to an infant or child, make sure a Urologist does it; she's sat through too many revisions as an anesthesiologist. It's not pretty.
Babies will scream for hours if their rattle falls on the ground. What else is new?
I already have my beer...a Jolly Roger, by Maritime Brewery......its much more fun, to sit back, and watch the fireworks.
I wouldn't know....never been with an uncut man. My hubby is snipped too.
Sorry, but cutting off the foreskin at age eight is not a routine or necessary operation.
You obviously never had a foreskin...
< 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. They'll of course except(sp) it in the man they love, but prefer cut. >
I agree and I also do not know any women who don't prefer cut. Yes, guys, we do talk about these things.
I mean...I was never with a man who WASN'T uncut. LOL
Same here. What I can't stand is people that get their information from the 10 second news blurb and consider themselves informed. That's why I love FR, you get INFO here. Things you won't get other places. Plus I love the people. Well, most of the people. ;o)
We have two boys and we both had them circumcised and we did it unashamedly for aesthetic reasons, although we also heard the supposed benefits of the procedure. In our neck of the woods, I would wager that it's nearly, if not actually, a 100 percent circumcision rate for boy babies. It's just something that's done automatically, for better or worse. My wife and I talked and, knowing how mean kids can be to each other and how especially mean they can be to people who are "different" in any way, we agreed that we should have this done. Neither of us was in the room when the procedure was done, both times a nurse took the baby down to where it was performed and brought the baby back in a matter of minutes, and neither of our sons appeared to be in any great distress following the procedure. That being said, (a.) I would not in any shape, form or fashion try to tell anybody else that they ought to do this or criticize anyone who doesn't do this; (b.) if I was in a situation with a child who was 8, I don't know that I'd want it done because that's an age where the least little thing (even drawing blood from a finger) can be very traumatic; and (c.) I'd wager that, as in most problematic and contentious divorce cases, there's a lot of underlying heat that transcends circumcision and probably transcends the kid even, and this is just one more weapon for the parties to hit each other with.
I guess I can kind of agree with you there. I would also be interested in hearing an objective medical opinion before I conclude that her claims of medical necessity are true.
< You object to circumcisions being done to babies...may I ask why? >
OMG! Let the games begin.
(Leans back and gets comfortable.0
Like your tag line.......so true.
Good points GB.
>>>Does this mean you are in favor of the circumcision of other people's sons?>>>
Yep, if other people's sons want to be my husband.
Of course otherwise, it's up to the parents. If you are asking if I think it should be a law or something, of course not! But PERSONALLY I think it's stupid to not do it. My son is circumsized.
I think it is an unwritten rule that the posters with the most strident and vitriolic opinions have not read one word beyond the headline and first paragraph of the story. It is actually kind of amusing.
GOP lol quit trying to get a fight going....LMAO
>>>Because it is absolutely unecessary. I just cannot imagine putting a baby through that kind of pain for what amount to aesthetic reasons.>>>
Apparently you missed post #7.
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.