unbeliveable

[Superdad25]

I just read a story about a family getting their 13 year old circumcised against his wishes. In the US. I can't believe we allow such crap to go on. I feel like I want to puke. It does however make me not want to blame my parents as much - hell they could have really messed with me like this poor kid.

The story was written by the mother who said she explained all the benefits and consequences of being circumcised to her son, then told him he had no choice, it was being done. She said he will grow to love it :eek: I can't believe how little rights are given to children in this country.

I had read literature about how circ had been used as punishment in the early 1900s in the US - I guess that is still possible based on this. yikes.

[Joseph]

It happens this way to Muslims and Filipinos.

Yet there is a law that protects girls.

The US is a cesspool of hypocrisy.

[Joseph]

Here's the more unbelievable part:

There are actually doctors that will do it.

I wonder how many doctors would help sedate a 13yo girl to have her labia and/or clitoris removed.

Absolutely disgusting.

Quite outrageous for what passes for "medicine" in the US today.

[finman]

It happens this way to Muslims and Filipinos

Jo, what do Filipinos do? They make up some of my friends, so I would be interested to know, or do you mean Indonesians or Malaysians?

[Joseph]

Jo, what do Filipinos do? They make up some of my friends, so I would be interested to know, or do you mean Indonesians or Malaysians?

It is Filipino custom to circumcise boys at a later age.

I believe this is probably a left-over from when the Philippines was Muslim.

There is still a prominent Islamic group in the Philippines, but the rule is, if you're Filipino, you're circumcised at a later age.

Recently, there's been rumors of Americans going there to capitalize on the pre-existing circumcising culture to sell RIC to them.

Some of them are buying it, unfortunately...

:(

[Borneo]

Where'd you read it? Is there a link?

[admin]

It is Filipino custom to circumcise boys at a later age.

I believe this is probably a left-over from when the Philippines was Muslim.

There is still a prominent Islamic group in the Philippines, but the rule is, if you're Filipino, you're circumcised at a later age.

Recently, there's been rumors of Americans going there to capitalize on the pre-existing circumcising culture to sell RIC to them.

Some of them are buying it, unfortunately...

:(

The rate in Philippines is 90% - 95% that are cut some time before adulthood. They have only 5% as many doctors per person as the US has.

[cobra]

Think of all the lives saved if these doctors were providing real health care to sick people instead of mutilating children. PS-- there is a special place reserved for that woman. I wonder how big a fit she would pitch if someone tried to excise her clitoral hood and labia... :mad: Conformity is more important to her than her son's wishes, I guess. I hope he grows to hate her. I know I do.

[Terato]

I just read a story about a family getting their 13 year old circumcised against his wishes. In the US. I can't believe we allow such crap to go on. I feel like I want to puke. It does however make me not want to blame my parents as much - hell they could have really messed with me like this poor kid.

The story was written by the mother who said she explained all the benefits and consequences of being circumcised to her son, then told him he had no choice, it was being done. She said he will grow to love it :eek: I can't believe how little rights are given to children in this country.

Wow. Link or source on this? It's outrageous...

[Unregistered]

Do you have a link to the news article? I think that is considered a battery. It is not medically necessary, so there is not justification.

[BioNordic]

There is a case where two parents battled over the foreskin of a boy. The father had converted to judaism and wanted the 12-year old (in some places they claim 13, but I guess it has to do with the length of the court battle, he grew older) to be circumcised. The mother objected and tried to stop this via the courts.

It went up to the supreme court of Oregon (but was rejected by the U.S. Supreme court). It decided to throw the case back to the lower courts for them to find out what the boy really wanted. The mother claimed that the boy did not dare to tell his father that he objected to the procedure but falsely agreed on surface. It should be noted that the court would NOT automatically follow the boy's wishes, see my note at the end.

Early story from WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/11/07/oregon-high-court-grapples-with-circumcision-dispute/tab/article/)

CNN after supreme court decision (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/law/01/25/circumcision.case/index.html)

The Supreme Court decision itself (http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S054714.htm) is interesting: The supreme court says that the boy should be heard. But it is not his true wish that is decisive. They basically claims that the father can have him circumcised against his wishes if this will not produce so much animosity against the father that he will be a bad care-taker: "determine whether M's opposition to the circumcision will affect father's ability to properly care for M". M is the boy.

[BioNordic]

There is a case where two parents battled over the foreskin of a boy. The father had converted to judaism and wanted the 12-year old (in some places they claim 13, but I guess it has to do with the length of the court battle, he grew older) to be circumcised. The mother objected and tried to stop this via the courts.

It went up to the supreme court of Oregon (but was rejected by the U.S. Supreme court). It decided to throw the case back to the lower courts for them to find out what the boy really wanted. The mother claimed that the boy did not dare to tell his father that he objected to the procedure but falsely agreed on surface. It should be noted that the court would NOT automatically follow the boy's wishes, see my note at the end.

Early story from WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/11/07/oregon-high-court-grapples-with-circumcision-dispute/tab/article/)

CNN after supreme court decision (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/law/01/25/circumcision.case/index.html)

The Supreme Court decision itself (http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S054714.htm) is interesting: The supreme court says that the boy should be heard. But it is not his true wish that is decisive. They basically claims that the father can have him circumcised against his wishes if this will not produce so much animosity against the father that he will be a bad care-taker: "determine whether M's opposition to the circumcision will affect father's ability to properly care for M". M is the boy.

Update to this story. The boy, at 14, was heard by a judge in the lower court again, this spring 2011:

"On April 22, in the remand hearing in Jackson County, Oregon, the boy privately testified in the judge’s chambers with neither of his parents allowed to be present. Misha told the judge that he did NOT want to be circumcised and did NOT want to be Jewish. The Judge went on the record in the courtroom accepting that testimony."

http://ecochildsplay.com/2011/02/14/oregon-supreme-court-protected-12-year-old-boy-from-religious-circumcision/

[z726]

Update to this story. The boy, at 14, was heard by a judge in the lower court again, this spring 2011:

"On April 22, in the remand hearing in Jackson County, Oregon, the boy privately testified in the judge’s chambers with neither of his parents allowed to be present. Misha told the judge that he did NOT want to be circumcised and did NOT want to be Jewish. The Judge went on the record in the courtroom accepting that testimony."

http://ecochildsplay.com/2011/02/14/oregon-supreme-court-protected-12-year-old-boy-from-religious-circumcision/

Actually that quote was from an article written in 2009; this actually happened over 2 years ago. I'm not sure why they felt the need to bring it up in an article dated Feb 14, 2011, but I guess it helps to use examples for opinion articles.