General News Consent form signed under threat of jail

Not this again.

The woman was ordered by the court to produce the child to the father, who had custody of the kid. She refused to do so because the father was going to have the boy circumcised, so she got held in contempt of court. When you fight the law, the law is going to win every time.

 

In a lot of cases, it does have a valid medical purpose. The boy in question in this case had what's called Phimosis, which is a tight foreskin that cannot be retracted. For others it's about hygiene. The latest research shows that circumcised men have no more or less pleasure during sex than uncircumcised men, contrary to internet rumor. I say that we ought to just let the parents decide for themselves, and leave it at that. Here in the US, somewhere around 70% of males are circumcised. That's just my view on it.

 

The underlying assumptions here are faulty. It assumes that we have an obligation to follow the law. In other words you are arguing that we should follow the law because it is the law, or more specifically we should obey the law not simply comply with it. If you comply with the law, then you go along with what it says for whatever reason, usually self-interest (such as the fact that you don't want to end up in jail, as happened in this case). However, if you obey the law, which is what you are arguing here, then you do what the law says because the law said it. Thus, authority, rather than argument, is the reason you give for obedience.

Every Civil and Human Rights Activist understands that the state can lose legitimacy, assuming it had legitimacy in the first place (something that is always in question). As Martin Luther King Jr. so wonderfully put it:

That's what this case comes down to, whether the act itself is moral or immoral. It does not matter whether or not she signed a contract, nor does it matter what the state has to say on the matter. We accept that people can break contracts under certain circumstances, especially when certain aspects of what was being agreed to were not known. Further, one would have to assume, in this case, whether the consent of either parent is relevant in the matter. After all, the argument is over another human being, who has his own rights, which are not being discussed or taken into consideration. The judge is using coercive state force to make the mother sign the consent form (making a mockery of "consent"), but the more pressing question is not whether or not the mother or the father want the operation. The more pressing and relevant question is should the operation happen at all. There is only one way to answer that question, and that is with a resounding "No!"

There is no medical or religious reason to perform this operation. Doctors have consistently said that it is unnecessary. The father is not part of a religion that demands that it be performed. He simply wants it done for whatever arbitrary reasons he holds. This is in direct conflict with his son's fundamental human right to his own bodily integrity. Children are not property. They cannot be owned. They have a right to their own bodies, and part of that right means that they have a right to not have their bodies surgically altered. Especially as a result of a dispute between his parents.

His mother is not morally obligated to follow the law. She has every right, in this case, to flee with her child and defy the state. The state sacrifices its legitimacy, first by demanding that the child undergo an unnecessary operation voiding his human right to bodily integrity, and then by compelling his mother to consent to it through coercive state force.

The moral judgement now falls upon others, to protect the mother, protect the child, hold the judge accountable, and hold any surgeon and hospital accountable who performs the operation. Their names will be known, and should they engage in unjust and immoral actions with the young boy, have every reason to be concerned about the consequences.

 

I haven't followed the case too closely, but it's my understanding that in this boy's case, there really was no real issue. Yes, it was claimed to be an issue, but that got debunked.

---------- Post added 24th May 2015 at 04:41 PM ----------

Also worth noting: I've been hearing that it's not unusual for a foreskin to not retract at age 4. I don't know anything about these people, but they are apparently doctors, and cite a study that shows over 28% of boys in Denmark don't have retractable foreskins at age 4.

The Development of Retractile Foreskin in the Child and Adolescent

Even if there are medical issues, I have to wonder why the first reaction in this country is "CUT HIM!!!"

---------- Post added 24th May 2015 at 04:55 PM ----------

I may have the dubious honor of bringing this case up originally. Here's the thread from about a year ago, which lasted less than 14 hours before being locked.

http://emptyclosets.com/forum/curre...fl-parents-court-fight-over-circumcision.html

I'm not torn. I do understand the legal crap. But I also am 100% on the side of the boy. He is now 4 1/2. He apparently does not want this done. It will be painful, and there is always a risk of complications with any surgery. He will remember this the rest of his life, and it could create psychological scars that last the rest of his life. Apparently, the father has to pay the costs of the surgery. Should it go through, and should there be the psychological harm, I hope the father gets forced to pay for any needed therapy. If that means $100/week/life, and it bankrupts him, don't except any sympathy from me.

 

Thank you for posting this. I actually was going to post this myself, but I decided to ask the staff if it was okay first. I just didn't get around to posting it.

I feel like a couple of things need mentioning.

1. If you want to be circumcised, or you think circumcised penis is more attractive, that's great. But you're of an adult age to make that decision for yourself.

2. We should not, as a matter of course, be permitting medically unnecessary circumcision of a minor. They are not of an age to meaningfully consent to that procedure.

3. The mother, in this case, was trying to shield her child from domestic violence (that is, trying to circumcise the child). It's absolutely sick that she was put in jail for "evading a custody order."

4. Although the mother "signed a parenting agreement" that included circumcision, it's fairly obvious that everything she's "consented" to has been under duress. Most probably including that agreement. She probably signed it because she was worried she would lose custody of the child entirely.

5. The supposed "medical reason" is bullshit. As an uncircumcised person myself, I have no fucking idea how peeing on one's own leg has anything whatsoever to do with the foreskin.

~ Adrienne

 

Gross. I hate circumcision, and this just seems wrong to jail someone over.

And the hygiene excuse is just weird. Factually speaking, vaginas are just as dirty and "smelly" as uncircumcised penises, with biological females being at a much much higher risk of UTI's. Doesn't mean we can go cutting their bits, same for guys.

 

I have been known to pee on my leg. It must be Phimosis. [BMC77 looks inside pants.] Oh, that's right, they sliced and diced me when I was baby.

---------- Post added 24th May 2015 at 05:15 PM ----------

Not necessarily.

If people didn't fight the law, there would never have been Lawrence vs. Texas. It would still be illegal engaging in certain sexual acts there and probably elsewhere in the US.

---------- Post added 24th May 2015 at 05:20 PM ----------

It seems that way. Although--breakthrough news--there is an innovative system to help those suffering with a dirty penis. It's called: "Take a shower."

 

Lol! I agree on the hygiene part!

Actually circumcision for men as a hygiene issue seems almost insulting to male intelligence. I'm not attracted to men, but if I were- I wouldn't want to date some lazy ass guy who uses "I'm circumcised!" as an excuse for hygiene. It just means that that guy doesn't give a damn about his hygiene anyway and has no clue how to clean his dick. Gross!

 

It does.

I saw something on the Internet on this. It said something along these lines: you said when your son grows up he could be President, but you don't trust him to be able to properly clean himself.

 

It's a non-issue really. All you have to do is roll the foreskin back while you're in the shower and give it a wash with moderately warm water (or hot water if you take hot showers - but I don't).

Oh, and you roll it back when you take a piss as well. So I don't really see the big deal.

 

Actually, I leave it alone completely when I urinate... Which again, causes me to have great difficulty understanding the "but he liek, pees on his leg" *air quotes* """argument"""

 

It's an American thing.

I'm from Spain. People born there are not circumcised after birth regularly like they are in the U.S. The obsession with circumcision for non-religious reasons is a uniquely American phenomenon.

So I guess us Europeans are all unhygienic and diseased because we didn't have a part of our body removed without our consent. The idea that all men are born with something that needs surgical removal...when you really think about these things, it gets harder to justify. Especially when "I want him to look like his dad" is one of the biggest reasons it's done.

 

Yeah, I don't understand that one too well.

On a poll on another site I post on where people who were pro-circumcision gave reasons why, another reason cited was "American women don't like uncut penises". I facedesked.