General News FL parents in court fight over circumcision

I think circumcision is a disgusting practice myself. It's bothersome and involves performing an unnecessary surgery on a child who has zero say in the matter. The only potential health benefits to it are "maybe, kinda" but really there is nothing that holds any real weight in the matter.

 

The mutilation of children's genitals should be illegal. No parent's rights to choose supercede human rights. Just let him decide when he's old enough to understand what it means.

 

There are a lot of things about this story that are just... W.T.F.

WTF? He actually had a legal document stipulating that his son would be circumcised? There is no evidence that his reasons have anything to do with religion - not that it should matter - it's just something he apparently wants done.

I'm really shocked by this ruling. According to the news report, the Judge made the decision based on contract law. However, shouldn't the best interest of the child be what's at issue? The child isn't a piece of property that's owned by the parents until he's eighteen. He has rights that extend to him, even as a child, and one of those fundamental rights is bodily integrity.

I find it hard to believe the Judge would have ruled similarly if the contract had stipulated that the boy be forced to have a genital piercing.

That can be proven false. However, even ignoring that fact we have to look at how INSANELY rare penile cancer is, according to the American Cancer Society, it's suspected that in 2014: 1,640 new cases of penile cancer will be diagnosed, and only 320 men will die of penile cancer. That's roughly 1 out of every 1,000 men.

There is some evidence to suggest that circumcision as an infant reduces the risk of the extraordinarily rare penile cancer, but this prevention decreases dramatically as a child gets older - to the point that adults who undergo circumcision are no less at risk than men who are still fully intact.

And let's be clear here, the risk is because penile cancer is a cancer of the skin or tissues of the penis. So, obviously, if you remove part of the penis you're going to reduce the risk. However, following that line of logic to it's conclusion, it's a bit like saying you'll reduce the chance of penile cancer to 0% by chopping it off entirely.

In fact, based on the CDC's own estimates the risks of complications of circumcision is even higher than the risks of developing penile cancer. So, basically, if you're following this line of logic it's basically saying: "Let's reduce the risk of the child getting penile cancer, which is insanely rare, by putting him at higher risk during the procedure to prevent the cancer that is likely to never happen."

Despite all this there are NUMEROUS things you can do to reduce your risk, and even if you do nothing it's still INSANELY rare.

Let's even set aside the fact that you can do numerous things to reduce your risk of developing penile cancer such as: good hygiene, not smoking, getting vaccinated against HPV, and using condoms. Do those things and your risk of developing penile cancer is even lower than the average.

There is just so much logical fail here that it hurts my brain. :eusa_doh:

This is what really made me angry, here. Basically the judge is telling the mother that she has to keep her mouth shut, and pretend that she was always on board with it. That's bullshit, and I consider that a violation of her First Amendment rights. There is no reason that she should effectively have her speech silenced by the judge, outside of the fact that the judge is likely worried the child might grow resentful of the father for FORCING HIM to undergo an UNNECESSARY medical procedure that amputated part of his penis.

If this was a concern of the judge or the father, then the judge should have taken a step back and wondered whether an unnecessary medical procedure was in the best interest of the child in the first place. The judge should have then ruled that the child gets to make the decision when he becomes an adult, as it's his body, and as a result he should get to decide what happens to it. Thus, in the absence of any immediate medical reasons to circumcise the child, he should have ruled in the mother's favor.

Besides, the whole case stinks of a father in a dispute with the mother, and using their son as a bargaining chip in that dispute. Basically it sounds like he's saying, "I'll cut the boy if you don't give me X, Y, and Z." The father presented ZERO evidence as to why he wanted the boy to be circumcised, outside of the fact that he had a contract. He wasn't even standing there crying out, "It's my religion!"

I'd be really interested in knowing if this judge had any motives outside of the case for his ruling.

The good news is that a stay was issued, and that they're appealing the ruling. Hopefully the 4th District Court of Appeals hears the case and rules in favor of the mother.

If she ultimately loses the case, I'd be interested in knowing whether or not she could go back to court over it, but instead of arguing about her son - she should argue about herself. She could claim that as the boy is three years old, her moral objection to circumcision is so strong that it would cause her undo psychological harm to be forced to circumcise her son, and then be forced - by the courts - to tend his wounds.

Honestly, this would have been my original argument, especially as it involves a contract, and going up against the culturally ingrained "every boy must be cut" mentality.

 

That article really tries to paint the mom in a good light to the point of bias. The two made an agreement, and now shes breaking it. The whole situation is very melodramatic.

 

Yes because two people should be able to agree to perform unnecessary surgeries without the consent of the person who's having surgery performed on them. =/

 

Unfortunetly for a young child that logic doesn't work.

What if the mom wanted to take the child to a daycare but the father wanted to raise him at home, since the child can't consent does the situation become moot?

What if the parent wants the child to eat carrots?

The issue at hand is that both parents agreed to an action, then the 1 broke the agreement, of course the child cannot consent to EITHER action, so its irrelevant.

 

Yes because eating carrots and going to daycare are the same thing as having a part of their body removed via surgery for no real reason.

 

It's not 'for no reason', otherwise the issue would never have happened. The reason is irregardless, in the case of law the father is in the right. The mother is now trying to appeal it based on a change of personal beliefs.

 

It amazes me how 'objectified' children are. Does anyone realize they are people? I guess not, they must just be dolls for the parents to play with until they turn 18 because things like circumcision should not be allowed.

 

This child will probably be traumatized after this and will remember the procedure 100%. Why the hell would they even have waited until he were 3 years old, when the brain is more developed on top of that. Of course I know babies can feel it too, and I don't approve of that either.

I'm anti-circumcision myself (However, I am okay with it in regards to adult males making their own decision).

If my (hypothetical) wife and I decided to have a baby and it were a boy, I would never forgive her if she tried to circumcise him, especially without my consent. I understand she signed an agreement, but that can change.

It disgusts me when people make arguments as if baby boys are just a piece of property that the parents can do whatever they want to them. Comparing it to parents choosing to make their kids eat whatever or make them go to school is comparing apples and oranges. Circumcision is a permanent procedure that can mess with the guy's sexual health in the future; It's irreversible and even foreskin restoration can't bring back the lost nerves. If parents really had the right to do whatever they wanted to their kids, they would also be able to do all sorts of fucked up shit to them which is already illegal- because minors do have their own bodily rights, as they should.

 

I agree with everyone else here. Circumcision is a pretty disgusting practice. People say it's necessary to prevent diseases, but if you think about it, it really doesn't. All it truly does is increase the risk of infection and causes the child severe pain, even later in life. Plus, the child has no say in the matter. Cutting off a part of a child's body without their consent or a real medical reason is a HUGE violation of their rights.

Would I like it if the doctor decided to chop off a body part of mine without my consent or medical reason? HELL NO. I know female circumcision is much more horrible than male circumcision, but does that justify it? NO.

I think circumcision is only justified when it's a life or death situation, if a tumor was on the foreskin, for example. If there's nothing wrong with it, leave it alone.

 

My step-brother got an infection on his foreskin and his mother made him get circumcised at age 15. People who make a child go through something so horrible for something that can be easily fixed without it don't need to be raising children.

If an adult wants to get it done, that's fine, but forcing a child to go that is terrible. Children are not property. Their bodies belong to them and them alone, and nobody has the right to do anything to them unless it's medically necessary. The people who do it for religious reasons are even worse. They think the First Amendment justifies mutilation because it's "in the name of god." I would think if god didn't like foreskin, he wouldn't make it in the first place. :dry:

 

Circumcision of minors should be illegal, period.

And this father should be ashamed of himself. Fuck him. He is clearly an unfit father if he wishes to inflict pain and suffering upon his son and chop off his son's body part. Put him in prison, he is a threat to his son and to all of society.

Bodily integrity is a human right.

The only time the foreskin should ever be amputated is out of genuine medical emergency- just like the only time you would ever allow an arm or leg to be amputated. It is because of sick religious and cultural stupidity that for some reason American society has created an exception that that says the male foreskin is not protected just like any other functional normal human body part and can just be hacked off for no reason.

"Parental rights" is a crock of shit- a child has human rights- he is not the property of his parents- as is allowing this mutilation in the name of "religious freedom". We don't allow female circumcision even though certain religious and cultural groups demand and expect females to be circumcised. In fact it's against the law to even take a pinprick of blood from a female's genitals, yet it's perfectly acceptable to hack off an entire functional part of the male's genitals, a part that would make up up to 50% of the surface area of the adult male's penis, a part that contains the most sensitive nerve endings in the male penis (and which protects the glans from callousing and becoming desensitized).

Ugh circumcision pisses me off so much, it's so obviously EVIL, but there are so many stupid morons out there who continue to perpetrate this EVIL upon innocent baby boys who don't get a say in what happens to THEIR bodies.

 

I don't think the article was biased. It was a straightforward accounting of events. If it leans toward the mother, it's only because the father and his attorney didn't want to speak to the press. If you watch the video from the local TV broadcast, you'd see that they mention where they've attempted to get in touch with both the father and his attorney.

None of what you wrote here makes sense or is even comparable to what is being suggested.

A comparable comparison is this: The father wants his son to have a genital piercing, specifically a Prince Albert. The mother originally agreed, they signed a contract, the father said he'd make the arrangements, and then the mother changed her mind. There is a dispute and it goes to court.

At this point, a responsible judge steps in and makes a decision that is in the best interest of the child. As the child is not a piece of property or a pet, he has certain rights. One of those rights is to bodily autonomy. As there is no pressing medical reason for the Prince Albert or the circumcision, and the child can decide whether or not to pierce / chop off part of his body when he becomes an adult, a responsible judge rules in favor of the mother. Not necessarily because she is "right" and the father is "wrong", but because it's in the best interest of the child, because his body belongs to him. This allows him, at an appropriate date in the future, to make a decision on what to do with his own body.

As you can see, none of this is even remotely similar to eating carrots or discussions over daycare. However, even in those cases, it's the responsibility of the judge to act in the best interest of the child when the parents themselves can't decide.

I think according to this judge at least, yeah. He totally could. It basically turns children into property of the parents with no individual rights of their own. It's not about acting in the best interest of the kid, it's just about whether or not she signed a piece of paper.

My hope is that even if she loses, that she can tie it up in the courts until the kid becomes a bit older. She could then get the kid a lawyer to attempt to speak on his own behalf. If the kid is the one bringing the lawsuit, since it's his body he might be able to have the contract invalidated.

Hell if it came down to it, I'd fight to have his parental rights nullified, thus also nullifying the contract.

I'd do whatever I could to tie it up and bog it down for as long as possible. The longer it drags out, the older the kid gets, and that gives him more power in a court of law.

From my reading of things, it looks as if the judge is trying to silence her forever. Which, could only be because either the father, the judge, or both are worried that the child may grow to resent what is being forced upon him by his father.

This raises the question if either the father, the judge, or both are worried about the boy growing up to resent his father for amputating his foreskin, then why are they pushing it? Once again, there is no pressing medical reason here. There is no religious motive. It's just because the father wants it done.

 

Oh good god, not this again.

Circumcision isn't a big deal. I'm circumcised and I'm fond of my "unnatural" penis. It works just fine, it brings me pleasure, I'm happy with it.

 

Yes, it is. Ignorance is bliss, if you're happy with your situation, that's great. But those who are educated about the foreskin and what circumcision does recognize it as a great evil that must be stopped to protect new generations of young boys from suffering this fate.

It is an unnecessary amputation of a healthy functional body part that greatly enhances sexual pleasure. I consider that a big deal. Just like I would consider it a big deal if for "cultural" reasons we amputated a baby's ears at birth. Bodily integrity is a human right. Hacking off entire body parts off a child's body not a big deal? A human being having to go through his whole life never knowing what it is like to have a complete body as evolution designed it, not a big deal? Ya no I tend to think otherwise. Circumcision is a big freaking deal, and it is pure evil.