US mom faces prison for blocking son’s circumcision

[Occupied Deutschland]

Here's an important bit that you've left out.



As such, there's a medical condition present. Given that, I support the decision of the court. Otherwise, I wouldn't.

The foreskin isn't supposed to be able to retract before the age of 5

I'm guessing a pediatrician who's looked at the boy in question is in a better position to determine the presence of the condition than random internet person #218901135.
In fact, that goes for the whole thread in general. I mean, you can argue circumcision's usage, but doing so through the avenue of an AT BEST debatable news story (and very possibly one that is actively an example of a serious medical procedure) is rather self-defeating.

[Alyakia]

Don't really get where all this vehement aggravation is coming from when it comes to circumcision. It has some health benefits in general, doubly so because this kid has the potential for Phimosis. It's not a crippling ailment, but when you consider the medically neutral nature of circumcision already, it makes no sense not to allow or even enforce it.

I myself am circumcised (TMI, I know) and have never experienced any kind of discomfort or shame as a result of it. I also know I have a few things working in my favor as a result of it, medically.

Tonsillectomies are body torture! #Appendixlivesmatter ! Vestigial tails are God's will!

don't compare it to a vestigal tail

it's already been said but it's basically a cultural thing. there's medical stuff... which is actually also split down mostly cultural lines. the cultures where it's prominent think it has many many medical benefits and the cultures where it's not produce more scientific literature to the contrary. huh. funny how that works.

[Fremskrittspartiet]

Cutting of parts of people's penises is brutal, and the person should decide for themselves. I am also a bit confused as to why it is so big in USA as it is....

[Galloism]

Wow, according the article, the son reports that his mom told him that they would cut off his penis.

[Zakuvia]

Wow, according the article, the son reports that his mom told him that they would cut off his penis.

Which frankly sounds like 9/10'ths of this thread. Honestly, you'd think that circumcisions were being performed with chainsaws. It's funny how people won't argue with the fact that there's not much any medical difference other than a positive between un and pro, but immediately leap on the bandwagon of genital torture and mutliation as if it were the forcible removal of women's sexual organs, ala the Middle East.

[Saiwania]

I think 4 is too young to diagnose for phimosis, I recall that I didn't bother to retract until 12 and had no complications to speak of. If some impatient doctor just decided early on that I had phimosis, I might've not had any chance to be uncircumcised. So forgive me if I don't immediately respect every medical opinion given.

[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.

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.

Done. If disregard for consent was not enough, perhaps practical utility will suffice.

[DaAngou14]

Wow, according the article, the son reports that his mom told him that they would cut off his penis.

No, but it's happened.

[DaAngou14]

It's funny how people won't argue with the fact that there's not much any medical difference other than a positive between un and pro, but immediately leap on the bandwagon of genital torture and mutliation as if it were the forcible removal of women's sexual organs, ala the Middle East.

There's a pathological difference, if you don't respect other people's bodies.

[Zakuvia]

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.

Done. If disregard for consent was not enough, perhaps practical utility will suffice.

Who in the bloody hell doesn't apply a local?! As soon as I read 'agony of the event' I stopped. I don't know what kind of nutter doesn't apply some kind of local anaesthetic, and yes, they do exist for infants. Circumcision is a wholly neutral process in my eyes when performed PROPERLY. THIS IS NOT PROPERLY.

[Occupied Deutschland]

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.

Done. If disregard for consent was not enough, perhaps practical utility will suffice.

*sigh* THIS ruling. Find me something about THIS ruling from the pediatrician who looked at the boy and diagnosed him with phimosis.

[DaAngou14]

THIS IS NOT PROPERLY.

Try again. This is not proper for a human being.

[Lindenholt]

*Tries to make a dick joke/pun*
*Fails*

Who cares about the mother not circumcising her kid, as long as it doesn't endanger the kid it's her choice. If he is in good health and gets his vaccines this woman should not be persecuted.

[Arcanda]

In Korea it is very common.
The Philippines
Most of Africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision

The Philippines and most of Africa aren't developed.

But Canada and America are.Circumcision benefits the child.

[Galloism]

Wow, according the article, the son reports that his mom told him that they would cut off his penis.

Which frankly sounds like 9/10'ths of this thread. Honestly, you'd think that circumcisions were being performed with chainsaws. It's funny how people won't argue with the fact that there's not much any medical difference other than a positive between un and pro, but immediately leap on the bandwagon of genital torture and mutliation as if it were the forcible removal of women's sexual organs, ala the Middle East.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm against circumcision as an elective procedure. I am no longer convinced the benefits outweigh the risks.

But you don't tell a small child his daddy wants to cut off his penis.

[DaAngou14]

Circumcision benefits the child.

Even if I believed that, it wouldn't be the case in the event of a mistake, and you must really believe in marginal benefits if you're willing to assault other people to enforce them.

[Devvo Mate]

But Canada and America are.

Hence why I said "most of the developed world"

Circumcision benefits the child.

If increased risk of sexual infection and far less sexual pleasure counts as benefiting then yeah sure.

[Zeinbrad]

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.

Done. If disregard for consent was not enough, perhaps practical utility will suffice.

Autism is a neurological developmental disorder. It has nothing to do with your pride and joy.

[Occupied Deutschland]

But Canada and America are.

Hence why I said "most of the developed world"

Circumcision benefits the child.

If increased risk of sexual infection and far less sexual pleasure counts as benefiting then yeah sure.

Systematic Reviews can be handy things.

[Valkalan]

Done. If disregard for consent was not enough, perhaps practical utility will suffice.

*sigh* THIS ruling. Find me something about THIS ruling from the pediatrician who looked at the boy and diagnosed him with phimosis.

The issue at hand is a breech in contract in which the mother changed here mind regarding her son's upcoming circumcision. While I believe that she should have considered the situation more carefully prior to signing such a contact, I do not blame her for her later actions.

Of course, this does not change the fact that circumcision amounts nothing but the mutilation of an infant's genitalia without their consent.

[Scomagia]

Which frankly sounds like 9/10'ths of this thread. Honestly, you'd think that circumcisions were being performed with chainsaws. It's funny how people won't argue with the fact that there's not much any medical difference other than a positive between un and pro, but immediately leap on the bandwagon of genital torture and mutliation as if it were the forcible removal of women's sexual organs, ala the Middle East.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm against circumcision as an elective procedure. I am no longer convinced the benefits outweigh the risks.

But you don't tell a small child his daddy wants to cut off his penis.

The risks are negligible. The benefits include a reduction in the risk of contracting HIV, HPV, and certain penile cancers.

[DaAngou14]

The benefits include a reduction in the risk of contracting HIV, HPV, and certain penile cancers.

Doesn't apply to me, I'm not promiscuous. Even with so-called benefits, it's no longer recommended by the medical establishment.

[Occupied Deutschland]

*sigh* THIS ruling. Find me something about THIS ruling from the pediatrician who looked at the boy and diagnosed him with phimosis.

The issue at hand is a breech in contract in which the mother changed here mind regarding her son's upcoming circumcision. While I believe that she should have considered the situation more carefully prior to signing such a contact.

Of course, this does not change the fact that circumcision amounts nothing but the mutilation of an infant's genitalia without their consent.

And you base this off of something said or suggested by the pediatrician who diagnosed the boy with phimosis?
Or an opposing pediatrician for the mother who disputes that diagnosis?
Or do you base it off of an ass-pull that just happens to conform to your desired precepts?
Because that last one is looking like the answer at the moment.

[Devvo Mate]

Systematic Reviews can be handy things.

Right back at ya!

[Valkalan]

Done. If disregard for consent was not enough, perhaps practical utility will suffice.

Autism is a neurological developmental disorder. It has nothing to do with your pride and joy.

If you want to take that change with your hypothetical newborn son, based on present legal considerations that is your own business.