Mother jailed for refusing to have 4 year old son circumsized

[CQmethodist]

This one always confused me. Is having unprotected sex with HIV positive people so important that we justify circumcision for a reduction in transmission rates?

Because that's what I see every time someone mentions this. Which is absurd.

Secret surgery free method to drastically reduce HIV transmission: condoms.

Circumcision helps. If one is part of a particularly at-risk group, such as MSMs, then the best method to protect yourself is condom use plus Truvada.

 

[HannahT]

Still not really an amazing reason (generally, medically speaking) to have a boy circumcised. It's almost as if antibiotics don't exist.

I guess they didn't use them that way - or maybe they did and it didn't work - back in the 1940's. I do know his medical issues in that area stopped once it was over.

 

[Supreme]

The mother is in the right here. The idea that a Court can *order* a 4 year old to have a surgical procedure like this, of no benefit to his lifespan, is frightening.

 

[HannahT]

Sooo....what you are saying is only the individuals in the link you supplied count. The individual you quoted on this thread - who claims the opposite for his life doesn't.

I don't see a cultural sensitivity here - I see a disagreement due to life experiences.

 

[CQmethodist]

The mother is in the right here. The idea that a Court can *order* a 4 year old to have a surgical procedure like this, of no benefit to his lifespan, is frightening.

The mother and father agreed to have their child circumcised, and signed a legally binding agreement to that effect. Does she just get to unilaterally throw it out because she changes her mind? Should courts ignore contract law, or follow it?

 

[Fenny the Fox]

The mother and father agreed to have their child circumcised, and signed a legally binding agreement to that effect. Does she just get to unilaterally throw it out because she changes her mind? Should courts ignore contract law, or follow it?

Not all "contracts" people sign are enforceable by a court, they are not always legally binding. This, honestly, should fall under that category.

 

[CQmethodist]

Not all "contracts" people sign are enforceable by a court, they are not always legally binding. This, honestly, should fall under that category.

That's for a court to decide, not you. And not the mother.

 

[Lost Angel]

Removing skin from sensitive nerve ending skin reduces sexual sensation.

How can an adult know the feeling difference as an adult?

 

[Fenny the Fox]

That's for a court to decide, not you. And not the mother.

I am merely stating opinion.

Also, this is the reason the mother appealed to a higher court and is waiting on response, if I recall correctly.

 

[Supreme]

The mother and father agreed to have their child circumcised, and signed a legally binding agreement to that effect. Does she just get to unilaterally throw it out because she changes her mind? Should courts ignore contract law, or follow it?

In what insane world do parents sign something like a circumcision contract? Ridiculous.

 

[NightHawkeye]

In what insane world do parents sign something like a circumcision contract? Ridiculous.

LOL, today's world, obviously.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I am merely stating opinion.

Also, this is the reason the mother appealed to a higher court and is waiting on response, if I recall correctly.

That is a last minute legal maneuver to get her out of trouble.

She could have filed for an injunction, or some such, last year when that would have been appropriate.

 

[CQmethodist]

In what insane world do parents sign something like a circumcision contract? Ridiculous.

They signed a custody agreement, which included conditions regarding multiple medical and upbringing concerns, including circumcision. If she didn't want to agree to the circumcision, that was her chance to do it.

 

[jayem]

Interesting. There were about 10 circumcision protesters outside Barnes-Jewish Hospital today. (Which--in the interest of full disclosure--is my employer.) I've seen many abortion protesters before, but never this group. It seemed odd, but this might explain it. Maybe anti-circumcision advocates are pre-empting Red Nose Day. May 20 will be Red Other-Body-Part Day.

 

[SuperCloud]

Circumcision helps. If one is part of a particularly at-risk group, such as MSMs, then the best method to protect yourself is condom use plus Truvada.

The best method is abstinence.

I'm circumcised and I've caught a bacterial STD. Twice. The last time while wearing a condom--which broke.

Many things can help reduce your chance of getting an STD but the best chance is not to be in contact with a transmittable disease period. Being circumcised is not going to help you much--not enough to justify circumcision as a measure of STD prevention--if you're in repeated contact with agents of a disease.

In terms of HIV the virus itself is not in "every single drop of blood." So, a drop of blood from someone with HIV making contact with your open wound may not result in you contracting HIV (but in terms of sexual fluids I don't anything about that). And even if you had a circumcised penis in that case its not your circumcision that prevented you from getting HIV. But of course, per hygienic reasons, a circumcised penis might statistically reduce your chances of being infected by an STD. But then again... if a non-circumcised person properly bathes himself and is not involved in behavior--including sexual behavior--that increases his odds of contracting an STD then he should in general be fine.

Consuming alcohol is worse than not being circumcised when it comes to the spread of STD's. Yet, alcohol is still freely sold in the USA even though like IV heroin use the medical establishment knows its strongly correlated to HIV and STD's.

 

[SuperCloud]

The mother and father agreed to have their child circumcised, and signed a legally binding agreement to that effect. Does she just get to unilaterally throw it out because she changes her mind? Should courts ignore contract law, or follow it?

Well whether or not so-called judicial activism is right or wrong, its a practice enthusiastically embraced when people on the political left view a certain contractual agreement as being immoral.

US judges practicing judicial activism have sided with impoverished Americans that willfully signed contractually binding agreements with rent-to-own furniture and electronics establishments. The judges in certain cases viewed the contractual arrangements with the interest rates as being predatory. The judges may have acted right. But assuming they did for grown Americans that were "financially ignorant" and therefore vulnerable, certainly a 4 year-old child can be viewed at least as vulnerable as grown adults, and therefore in need of the protection of some judicial activism.

 

[OGM]

All forms of circumcision tend to really be falling out of style in much of Europe and Australia. Even in the USA is has been proven to fall rapidly when insurance carriers refuse to pay for it.

 

[Gadarene]

Your said we ignore them due to our cultural sensitivities, and pretty much wagged your finger at someone that claimed his procedure didn't hurt him.

Yet, your own article you posted to mentions her 'culture' as the reason she did it.

I'm aware of that. That's why I posted it.

Again - we defend MGM by appealing to one set of cultural sensitivities, but decry FGM despite the cultural sensitivities of those who find it a valuable procedure.

I'm saying we need to be consistent, one way or the other, here. I'd much rather all genital mutilation for stupid reasons (not that there are really any good reasons for it) be done away with, rather than making facile arguments as to why it's an atrocity when done to females but totally ok when done to males.

See below:

She has lamented that her Westernized “feminist sisters insist on denying us this critical aspect of becoming a woman in accordance with our unique and powerful cultural heritage.”

I know for many years people had this done at birth for boys due to medical advice - once upon a time. Now, they give you the option.

Give whom the option? The parents, or the boy?

She had it done due to her heritage, and fells it is part of becoming a woman.

It seems to me we are talking about apples and oranges here.

It is different in that regard, yes.

 

[OGM]

I'm aware of that. That's why I posted it.

Again - we defend MGM by appealing to one set of cultural sensitivities, but decry FGM despite the cultural sensitivities of those who find it a valuable procedure.

I'm saying we need to be consistent, one way or the other, here. I'd much rather all genital mutilation for stupid reasons (not that there are really any good reasons for it) be done away with, rather than making facile arguments as to why it's an atrocity when done to females but totally ok when done to males.

Gadarene,

Of course you are 100% correct. I mean many of the countries with the lowest circumcision rates (think Scandinavia) also have extremely low HIV infection rates. Why not try to emulate countries with low infection rates instead of performing unnecessary surgery. Would we cut off an little girls breasts because of her BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 status? Female tend to have an awful lot of yeast infections. Would it be acceptable to remove the outer labia? Tissue that does not exist can't get infected. I think most reasonable people would say "NO" to the above surgeries.

As far as the foreskin ofa male is considered...yes it has an important function in humans and animals. It is not a design error or mistake. It is there to protect the very sensitive glans. Think would happen if you removed the hood of the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. It would be unprotected. In either gender the body was designed to protect. It is not a design flaw.

 

[Paradoxum]

My genitals are not mutilated.

Well you're missing a part of it, and that reduces function... so is that isn't mutilation, what is?

I was not harmed by my circumcision.

I'm pretty sure your baby self would disagree. Just because you don't remember the pain, that doesn't mean it didn't hurt.

Also, from what I understand, it makes masturbation more difficult, and reduces nerve endings. Perhaps you don't care, but not caring about an injustice doesn't make it okay. Someone being fine with working only for shelter and food doesn't make slavery okay.

Don't impose your opinions on every male in the country.

"Don't impose your opinion on every female by saying FGM should be outlawed."

If a male wants to be circumcised at an age where they can understand, I'd say that's up to them.

Male circumcision is completely different from female genital mutilation, which is crippling to a woman's ability to experience sexual pleasure.

I agree it's different, but it's not completely different.