Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

Judge has granted emergency motion to stay the court order:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/224093434/Order-Granting-Emergency-Motion-for-Review

Huh, interesting. Might be worth keeping up with to see where this is going. I still very much do not want this to be decided on the merits of circumcision, because that's way beyond what this court should be doing, but if there's an applicable precedent in contract law, that would be fine. I'm always happy to see resolutions to fuckups (in this case, the contract), provided they don't involve greater fuckups (a sweeping ruling beyond the court's authority).

[Moghjubar]

procedure with no grave negative consequences

Surgery + no grave negative consequences are terms that do not go together, because even in the best settings there are chances of horrible things going wrong.

... and then theres more other problems too. http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/

Lets just say that I'll never forgive the doctors that did it to me.  When it happened, my mother was also gravely misinformed and thought she had to do it cause she had no choice (because the doctors wanted to do it, not even religious reasons other than misinformation that lead to USA policy) while my father didn't want it done, and thought it was too late to stop it so let it be done.

[Helgoland]

Did they botch it? If so, my condolences. In general, though, the incidence of serious complications is rather low:

In a recent prospective observation-based study of 583 neonatal circumcisions, Banieghbal reported only two minor bleeding complications requiring sutures. Both occurred in infants aged 3 weeks. Based on use of the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale, he further reported that the ideal timeframe for a “pain free” circumcision is during the first week of life.

King reported a period when 500,000 consecutive circumcisions were performed in New York city without a single fatality [17].

Both these quotes come from a larger comparative study; it's with pictures, so it may be NSFW.
The older the child, the higher the danger of complications, though - and these findings assume a hospital setting, which is not always the case with religious circumcisions.

[Owlbread]

I don't think anyone really objects with circumcision in principle for those that want to have it (same with any other form of body modification), it's when parents decide to have it done to their kids that it becomes a problem. Especially because it's "the done thing", because they want their kids to be like them, because they don't want the kids to be bullied or because they want to force their religion onto their child.

It doesn't matter what statistics you can pull up showing that circumcisions don't often go awry, it's just fundamentally wrong to cut off your son's foreskin without his consent.

[RedKing]

Moocow, my comment wasn't a "threat". It was merely a prediction based on past instances of this discussion. Maybe the Western world in general is pro-circumcision but I think you'll find B12 is strongly against it. Last time this came up, I think I was deemed just this side of Mecha-Hitler for having my son circumcised.

It is kind of hard not to see you as Mecha-Hitler for doing that though, I'm sorry.

I'll make it easier for you then.

BTW, those are quad foreskin clippers, not chain guns.

[moocowmoo]

Parental fight before a judge over circumcising son comes down to medical opinion

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Now, as the parents go before the appeals court to argue their case, a big issue will be what medical experts have to say about circumcision.

"Circumcision in the U.S. has been like a roller coaster,” said Boca Raton based pediatrician Dr. Aaron Kaweblum.

Every year, Kaweblum performs around 250 circumcisions a year in his medical office, 70% percent of which are based on religious preference.

He says over the past 30 years, this medical procedure has gone from being fully accepted, to being controversial, and now it’s a mix of both.

"Circumcision has been shown to be beneficial on decreasing the presence of cancer in the penis,” said Kaweblum, as well as decreasing sexually transmitted diseases.

He adds that its best parents do this procedure on a newborn.

But in the case of two parents fighting in court over whether or not to circumcise a 3-year-old, the surgery could be quite painful at this point.

“And it will take a while to recover,” said Kaweblum, “and there may be some bad memories of how much pain the child was on.”

"I believe the American Academy of Pediatrics does not condone circumcision,” said Dr. Stuart Wanuck, a urologist who has patients young and old.

"Now circumcision is much easier, more easily done in a newborn than an adult."

Wanuck adds that he has seen circumcision among newborns decrease.

"If the person who is uncircumcised follows a regiment of cleanliness, there really may not be any difference between the two,” said Kaweblum.

I hope it will be pointed out that a three year old is not at much risk of contracting STDs or penile cancer.

[Owlbread]

I'll make it easier for you then.

BTW, those are quad foreskin clippers, not chain guns.

I think that Mecha-Hitler from Wolfenstein 3D has to be my favourite game boss of all time. If you can get an animated version of the avatar it will be even better.

[XXSockXX]

Moocow, my comment wasn't a "threat". It was merely a prediction based on past instances of this discussion. Maybe the Western world in general is pro-circumcision but I think you'll find B12 is strongly against it. Last time this came up, I think I was deemed just this side of Mecha-Hitler for having my son circumcised.

It is kind of hard not to see you as Mecha-Hitler for doing that though, I'm sorry.

I'll make it easier for you then.

BTW, those are quad foreskin clippers, not chain guns.

Foreskin Clipper Mecha-Hitler sounds self-contradictory enough to remind me of Abradolf Lincler:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[RedKing]

Moocow, my comment wasn't a "threat". It was merely a prediction based on past instances of this discussion. Maybe the Western world in general is pro-circumcision but I think you'll find B12 is strongly against it. Last time this came up, I think I was deemed just this side of Mecha-Hitler for having my son circumcised.

It is kind of hard not to see you as Mecha-Hitler for doing that though, I'm sorry.

I'll make it easier for you then.

BTW, those are quad foreskin clippers, not chain guns.

Foreskin Clipper Mecha-Hitler sounds self-contradictory enough to remind me of Abradolf Lincler:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The irony of Mecha-Hitler defending circumcision had not even dawned on me. That is glorious.

[Leafsnail]

It actually seems pretty bizarre that a contract like this could be enforced in the first place.  Since when was it possible to irreversibly consent to surgery?  If someone sees new evidence against the procedure and decides against it they should be allowed to back out (or indeed have their child back out).

[misko27]

Actually, I guess the only hope to forbid circumcision in the US would be a court ruling. Not sure what statute exactly they'd use though. Here in Europe it's a bit weird, because the anti-circumcision movement has been tainted by islamophobes (and to a lesser extent, antisemites), using it, in the same way that they started caring about animal rights once they realized they could use it to bash Muslims over Halal slaughtering.

Still, I hope that one day it'll be forbidden for non-medical reasons.

I thought I wrote this already, huh, weird. Anyway, there is literally no chance in hell of a court ruling against circumcision, and in fact a ban on circumcision would face a severe risk of being struck down as unconstitutional.

Moocow, my comment wasn't a "threat". It was merely a prediction based on past instances of this discussion. Maybe the Western world in general is pro-circumcision but I think you'll find B12 is strongly against it. Last time this came up, I think I was deemed just this side of Mecha-Hitler for having my son circumcised.

It is kind of hard not to see you as Mecha-Hitler for doing that though, I'm sorry.

I'll make it easier for you then.

BTW, those are quad foreskin clippers, not chain guns.

Foreskin Clipper Mecha-Hitler sounds self-contradictory enough to remind me of Abradolf Lincler:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The irony of Mecha-Hitler defending circumcision had not even dawned on me. That is glorious.

Jewdof H. Hitlenberg (the H stands for Hynkel)

[moocowmoo]

It actually seems pretty bizarre that a contract like this could be enforced in the first place.  Since when was it possible to irreversibly consent to surgery?  If someone sees new evidence against the procedure and decides against it they should be allowed to back out (or indeed have their child back out).

I didn't think of it that way... it is indeed odd why consent to surgery should be irrevocable even two years later. It seems like the mother should have power to withdraw consent.



By the way, to those who have faulted this woman as being stupid or unreasonable, I think that's being highly judgmental. First of all, we can likely assume that in the 3 years she's been raising this child he has not had any major problems with his foreskin. Given that a common reason for circumcision is the popular wisdom "if you don't do it, he will be hard to clean and get infections", then it makes perfects sense that she would be having second thoughts two years later.

Secondly, we have no idea how informed she was at the time of signing the agreement. Many parents in the USA often don't know a thing about circumcision until the time comes when they're forced to decide if their son should be circumcised. Many people in the USA have no idea what the foreskin is, or believe it is some mythical thing of evil that is constantly getting filthy and infected. It's also not unheard of for parents to be severely pressured by family, spouses or nursing staff to circumcise despite their gut instinct against it. I have read stories of this from both mothers and fathers.

Lastly, the situation with the father is quite ambiguous. The written agreement was that he was responsible for getting the son circumcised. Unless he was actively kept from doing so, I don't think it is unambiguously his "right" to force the issue in court two years later. If this is the case, then I think there is leeway for discretion by the judge. If that is so then yes, I do maintain that it is heinous of the judge to force foreskin amputation for a boy who has seemingly has lived 3 years without any medical problems with his foreskin, against the wishes of his mother.

[GlyphGryph]

If that is so then yes, I do maintain that it is heinous of the judge to force foreskin amputation for a boy who has seemingly has lived 3 years without any medical problems with his foreskin, against the wishes of his mother.

Do you think it's any more heinous when it happens for any other reason?

[moocowmoo]

If that is so then yes, I do maintain that it is heinous of the judge to force foreskin amputation for a boy who has seemingly has lived 3 years without any medical problems with his foreskin, against the wishes of his mother.

Do you think it's any more heinous when it happens for any other reason?

Yes, like a legitimate medical problem. Arguably religion as well, because they have a reason that is based on it's own metaphysic rather than just ignorance about the male genitals. People were speculating whether the father is requesting it for religious reasons. If I'm not mistaken, Jews must circumcise on the 8th day, and in Islam they generally circumcise as young adults. So I'm curious what the father's reason is, but perhaps that's something he wishes to keep to himself and that's his right I suppose.

[Neonivek]

If I'm not mistaken, Jews must circumcise on the 8th day, and in Islam they generally circumcise as young adults. So I'm curious what the father's reason is, but perhaps that's something he wishes to keep to himself and that's his right I suppose

It might have been impossible, as well don't forget that we don't know how old the child was when the trials started.

It isn't unusual if the child was 1 or 2 when it started.

Heck the appeal alone might be an attempt to run up the time to make the son less eligible.