Court case on forced circumcision
 

got this from Carolyn at one of paralegal groups. I think that a 12-year old boy should be the FIRST one to consult if they are going to chop a chunk off.


"Putting aside your personal views on whether babies should be circumcised as birth, what do you think of a 12 year old child being forced to undergo a
circumcision because his father has changed religions? The father is up
front about the fact that there is no medical necessity for it. Should a
surgery without medical indications be within the rights of a custodial
parent to have forcibly performed without the input of (or despite it) either
the child or the non-custodial parent?

------------------

An Oregon father (an attorney), who is either in the process of converting
to Judaism or has already done so, wants his 12-year-old son (whom he has
custody of) circumcised against the natural mother’s express wishes. She
says the boy doesn't want it done and is afraid to talk to his father about
it. The case went to the Oregon Supreme Court after losses at both the
trial level and an intermediate appellate court. Judges affirmed without
opinion or testimony that a non-medical circumcision of a 12-year-old is
‘within the discretion of a custodial parent.’ On April 18 an organization
called "Doctors Opposing Circumcision" filed an amicus curiae brief in
support of the mother. Although the child is a Russian Orthodox Christian,
the American Jewish Congress, Anti-Defamation League, and other Jewish
organizations have taken an interest in the case and have filed an amicus
curiae brief in support of the father.

On June 19 the Oregon Supreme Court decided to hear the mother's appeal and set oral arguments for November 6, 2007 at 11:15am."

News article about the case:

http://www.forward.com/articles/11410/

That's CRAZY! I think I'll get any son of mine circumcised at birth, but mostly because uncircumcised penises look funny. ;) A baby just think to himself goo goo goo ga ga- OW!FUCKSHITOW! goo goo ga, where I think the 12 year old might hate his dad forever for an incredibly painful experience.

...but on the other hand, as long as you don't beat your children with an electric cord, they're pretty much your property as far as the law is concerned.

i suppose it is better than waiting til he is 15 and getting a fresh new hard on every 2.7 minutes.

There are laws in place in this country prohibiting female circumcision, which is typically done on adolescent females for religious or cultural reasons.

Logically, this should be no different.

But circumscision is a practice not necessarily based on logic.

I wonder what they would say about a parent trying to force their kid to get a tattoo?

Who's they? The court? I don't think there's been a case of forced tattoos; I don't know of any segment of society that practices that on children for religious or health reasons. Would be an interesting question to research, though.

Abortion? Boob job?

What is the precedence for forced circ cloud?

I don't think there is precedent in Oregon, which is why they're at the court of last resort there. I do have links to the amicus curia briefs filed, but I haven't read them.

Female and male circumcisions are not equivalents.

Then I guess those of you who want kids circumcised would have no problem with parents having their kid's ears docked?
It is the same thing.


Female and male circumcising are not the same, they are similar. It does affect sexual pleasure. It was adopted in the US as common practice to deter masturbation.

It didn't work.

Just my :2cents: ...*gets on high horse* This is outrageous child abuse. Go cut your own foreskin off if your Imaginary-friend-game makes you want to (I believe in the right of individuals to inflict damage on themselves), but you're not allowed to cut anybody else's off.
I know there is a huge spectrum between whacko cults that practice child rape and teaching your child religious values... we all have to draw the line somewhere, and I draw it (somewhere) in the area of psychological manipulation with guilt and fear of eternal torment. This case is well on the BAD side of that line.
Suppose Dad wanted to snip for purely aesthetic reasons. Not a chance he'd be allowed. But for religion, we make a serious case for it?
Sorry for the rant, folks, but religious nuts inflicting their views on other people gets my dander up. *gets off high horse*

Well said.

While not precisely congruent, I think a case can be made for strong similarities between male and female circumsicion. The practices are both so ancient, so deeply entrenched in culture, that you can find a whole host of rationalizations for them, mutating with time and population groups. These rationalizations and rationales have, over the millenium, become "fact."

Here is someone's interesting comparison between male and female genital cutting. Not sure I buy totally into all the comparisons, but it made for interesting reading:

http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.php

Actually many parents get their sons circumcised for purely aesthetic reasons. Also so they don't feel "different" and they look the same as Daddy. I appreciate that the age in this case makes a big difference in terms of emotion, but the truth is if parents are legally allowed to have surgery on their children for aesthetic reasons, let alone religious reasons, then it's hard to argue against this while the child is still a minor.