US mom faces prison for blocking son’s circumcision

[Greed and Death]

Worth pointing out she did not develop her anti circumcision view points until after the separation when it became a great way to deny the father visitation.

Also that is what she faces jail for denying the father visitation.

[Desperate Measures]

Circumcision, particularly in this case, is not a purely cosmetic procedure.

Doesn't matter.

It's not cosmetic though.

[DaAngou14]

Told by whom?

I wasn't going to bother, but this article looks particularly informative.
http://www.urologyteam.com/male-urology/penis

[Scomagia]

Circumcision, particularly in this case, is not a purely cosmetic procedure.

Doesn't matter.

It does matter because in this instance there is a pressing medical reason to do it.

[DaAngou14]

It's not cosmetic though.

Doesn't matter.

[Devvo Mate]

Worth pointing out she did not develop her anti circumcision view points until after the separation when it became a great way to deny the father visitation.

Also that is what she faces jail for denying the father visitation.

If my ex partner wanted to rip the end of my child's dick off I wouldn't let em near him either.

[Ashmoria]

while circumcising a 4 year old is probably a bad idea the mother needs to abide by her legal agreements.

[DaAngou14]

It does matter because in this instance there is a pressing medical reason to do it.

No there isn't. Phimosis often corrects itself. Also, no there isn't. A little trouble peeing isn't a pressing reason, unless you're bothered by it. Teach your child to pee.

[Hurdegaryp]

Cool story, bro. Also that 14 in your name seems to be suspect.

I would lean more on the side of it meaning his age.

Which is not exactly a common thing here in NationStates.

[Ostroeuropa]

Circumcision is mutilation, and to this day I have no clue why it is so widely practiced in the US but nowhere else in the developed world.

It's mutilation Unless the person chooses to have it done , or it's absolutely neccesary , then it's surgery

This.
No issue with consenting adults undergoing the proceedure.
This court ruling is fairly shit.

I can understand why they want to make it so parents dont abscond with children, but the circumcision aspect makes this ridiculous.

[Hanchu]

while circumcising a 4 year old is probably a bad idea the mother needs to abide by her legal agreements.

If those legal agreements include preforming elective surgery on a minor , one parent has every right to ignore them

[DaAngou14]

Worth pointing out she did not develop her anti circumcision view points until after the separation when it became a great way to deny the father visitation.

Also that is what she faces jail for denying the father visitation.

I'm not usually a feminist, but this is what they call a patriarchal standpoint. You could use the same argument for a father that was a rapist, except that he is a rapist.

[Arcanda]

http://rt.com/usa/238661-circumcision-florida-mother-prison/
A mother who has taken flight with her son to prevent his circumcision could face a prison sentence if she fails have the boy undergo the procedure, a judge ruled. The case, which began as a domestic dispute between Heather Hironimus and her husband, Dennis Nebus, over whether or not to circumcise their four-year-old son. The judge, meanwhile, is determined to ensure that the child undergoes the medical process to have his foreskin removed. Although still common practice in the United States, circumcision rates have begun to decline as some medical studies indicate the procedure may carry some risks.

Has this occurence affected your support for assault? Remember that a cosmetic procedure, if unwilling, is still an assault. It should be interesting to hear people justify his rape to him in a few years, if such a pathologically effected union can continue for that long - in Europe there has been talk of bans, but for some in the United States any normalized thing can be forced on a person as long as it can be glossed as "perhaps not so harmful."

This is RT, I don't trust that news source very much.Anyway, to answer your very biased question and poll, yes, I support circumcision.I am circumsized, I do very well, I don't even remember how it went nor do I remember any pain.This practice should never be banned nor forced.

But circumcision has been proven to be good.It partly reduces the risks for STDs.

Edit: Nevermind my first comment, the poll was changed.Thanks.

[Ostroeuropa]

Doesn't matter.

It's not cosmetic though.

And also:

"Facial scarring is purely cosmetic.
In fact it leaves the skin tougher than unscarred skin, so it's of benefit to people.
Clearly, we should purposefully disfigure children."

[DaAngou14]

Which is not exactly a common thing here in NationStates.

I'm experimenting with the new engine.

[Ifreann]

That's debatable.

Where else? Israel it's probably very common, so that's two, maybe Canada? Really not the done thing in Europe though.

The Middle East in general?

---

Told by whom?

I wasn't going to bother, but this article looks particularly informative.
http://www.urologyteam.com/male-urology/penis

Cheers.

[Valkalan]

I wouldn't appreciate it at all if you walked up to me, grabbed my arm and attempted to give me a free tattoo or piercing. In fact, I wouldn't hesitate to defend myself to my fullest capacity.

An infant is not capable of consent or self-defense. In any other context, this would qualify as child abuse or molestation. The savage practice of circumcision must be restricted solely to cases in which individuals of consenting age have freely agreed to undergo the procedure.

[DaAngou14]

This is RT, I don't trust that news source very much.

I'll add another.

[Scomagia]

I wouldn't appreciate it at all if you walked up to me, grabbed my arm and attempted to give me a free tattoo or piercing. In fact, I wouldn't hesitate to defend myself to my fullest capacity.

An infant is not capable of consent or self-defense. In any other context, this would qualify as child abuse or molestation. The savage practice of circumcision must be restricted solely to cases in which individuals of consenting age have freely agreed to undergo the procedure.

There's a medical reason here.

[DARGLED]

A better poll question would have been, Do you support male genital mutilation.

Kidnapping is illegal.
Circumcision is barbaric.

[Ashmoria]

while circumcising a 4 year old is probably a bad idea the mother needs to abide by her legal agreements.

If those legal agreements include preforming elective surgery on a minor , one parent has every right to ignore them

no they don't. the father is just as much a parent as the mother so their previous agreement on this matter should be the deciding factor.

[Fartsniffage]

I wouldn't appreciate it at all if you walked up to me, grabbed my arm and attempted to give me a free tattoo or piercing. In fact, I wouldn't hesitate to defend myself to my fullest capacity.

An infant is not capable of consent or self-defense. In any other context, this would qualify as child abuse or molestation. The savage practice of circumcision must be restricted solely to cases in which individuals of consenting age have freely agreed to undergo the procedure.

There's a medical reason here.

Not really. Kid is still too young for it to be a concern.

[Ostroeuropa]

If those legal agreements include preforming elective surgery on a minor , one parent has every right to ignore them

no they don't. the father is just as much a parent as the mother so their previous agreement on this matter should be the deciding factor.

I don't think the parents had any right to come to such an agreement in the first place.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Phimosis (/fɪˈmoʊsɨs/ or /faɪˈmoʊsɨs/[1][2]), from the Greek phimos (φῑμός ["muzzle"]), is a condition of the penis where the foreskin cannot be fully retracted over the glans penis. The term may also refer to clitoral phimosis in women, whereby the clitoral hood cannot be retracted, limiting exposure of the glans clitoridis.

At birth, the foreskin is fused to the glans and is not retractable. Huntley et al. state that "non-retractability can be considered normal for males up to and including adolescence."

Normal developmental non-retractability does not cause any problems. Phimosis is deemed pathological when it causes problems, such as difficulty urinating or performing common sexual functions. There are numerous causes of so-called pathological phimosis. Nonsurgical treatment involves the stretching of the foreskin, steroid creams and changing masturbation habits. Surgical treatments include preputioplasty and circumcision.

Physiologic phimosis, common in males 10 years of age and younger, is normal, and does not require intervention. Non-retractile foreskin usually becomes retractable during the course of puberty.

If phimosis in older children or adults is not causing acute and severe problems, nonsurgical measures may be effective. Choice of treatment is often determined by whether circumcision is viewed as an option of last resort to be avoided or as the preferred course.

The most acute complication is paraphimosis. In this condition, the glans is swollen and painful, and the foreskin is immobilized by the swelling in a partially retracted position. The proximal penis is flaccid. Some studies found phimosis to be a risk factor for urinary retention and carcinoma of the penis.

So, to clarify, without knowing the seriousness of the child's condition, we aren't really in a position to state whether or not it may be needed. There appears to be some basis for surgical intervention, to prevent worse conditions from developing.

Just to clarify for folks who were wondering.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I wouldn't appreciate it at all if you walked up to me, grabbed my arm and attempted to give me a free tattoo or piercing. In fact, I wouldn't hesitate to defend myself to my fullest capacity.

An infant is not capable of consent or self-defense. In any other context, this would qualify as child abuse or molestation. The savage practice of circumcision must be restricted solely to cases in which individuals of consenting age have freely agreed to undergo the procedure.

Usually people are sensible enough to include 'medical procedures' in those restrictions.

I'd say NSG is so far too underinformed on this issue to have much right in saying anything. Circumcision is a seperate matter. Hows about folks find some statements or such on the issue that may clarify whether this ruling is based on the request/suggestion/input of a medical doctor? Would be more useful than trying to broadly use what is, at best, a questionable case, as some kind of moral crusading focal point.