Mother forced to consent to genital mutilation of son to get out of jail

[irosie91]

damn i am normally a circumcision advocate....for many reasons...but this case just sucks..seems to me...you just got two very selfish people tormenting each other over a child...a power struggle....going on over a child's penis...they agreed to do this in a parenting plan....then she backs out..she is being used....and just doesnt see that...suddenly is she the darling of a movement....if she really believed this...stay in fucking jail....simple as that...

now you have one saying its medically needed....that is a simple fuss to solve...get a urologist in there....not one of the parents but a court one...and see what he/she says....

now the father is being a total dick...when the boy was an infant....the procedure is simple...and pretty much painless...at 4.5 its a major thing and painful as hell....at that age boys like to touch their penis...its very reassuring to them....okay that is ageless in men....the touching and reassuring....i swear...a man could wake up with both legs missing and one arm gone...they would take their surviving hand and reach down and grab their package...and sigh with relief their dick and boys are fine.....men are just like that....so what kinda father wants his son to endure this pain...and as others have said he can have it done later....

The reason men and boys grab their penis first thing in the morning is to make sure it's still there. When I was little, I saw my sisters didn't have what I have. My parents tried to explain it to me, but I couldn't shake the fear that my penis would come off as I slept and I would be just like them. Reaching down and squeezing that precious package first thing when I woke up assured me that all was right in the world.

we really did not have to know that much about
you.........

It's actually a very common fear. So too is the fear that a scorned wife cut it off in the middle of the night.

I have a better story--I is a girl---I have four brothers and no sisters-------my dad explained-----he said that I was
born on a VERY WINDY day

 

[irosie91]

Circumcision case Jailed mom who hid with 4-year-old boy signs consent for procedure - Sun Sentinel

That judge and that father deserve charges of child abuse and assault with a deadly weapon should he purposely mutilate the boy for his own sick pleasure. That pos judge needs thrown off the bench...this is what happens when we allow judges get it in their head they can do as they please and it will never stop until the people start dishing out justice old south style.

Had to read that whole thing just to get to the actual reasoning behind it.

"Hunker has argued that the boy's urologist determined there is no medical need for the circumcision, nor are there any religious reasons for it.

Nebus has testified he decided in late 2013 the circumcision was necessary because the boy was urinating on his leg due to a condition called phimosis, which prevents retraction of the foreskin.

The mother's attorneys have pleaded in court that the procedure will put the child at risk of surgical complications, brain damage or death, because of a history of problems with general anesthesia and scarring."

Pee sitting down. Problem solved.

As to the phimosis,

"Phimosis is deemed pathological when it causes problems, such as difficulty urinating or performing common sexual functions. There are numerous causes of so-called pathological phimosis. Nonsurgical treatment involves the stretching of the foreskin, steroid creams and changing masturbation habits. Surgical treatments include preputioplasty and circumcision.

A Danish survey found that the mean age of first foreskin retraction is 10.4 years.

Rickwood, as well as other authors, has suggested that true phimosis is over-diagnosed due to failure to distinguish between normal developmental non-retractability and a pathological condition.[11][12][13] Some authors use the terms "physiologic" and "pathologic" to distinguish between these types of phimosis;[14] others use the term "non-retractile foreskin" to distinguish this developmental condition from pathologic phimosis."

Kid's just 4.5 years old. This might not even be an actual problem. Foreskin isn't supposed to be retracting for another 6 years or so.

Real men don't sit down to pee.

read the Koran-----I, actually do not remember this part----but it seems that muhummad sat----so muslims
do the same------or so I have been told.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Circumcision case Jailed mom who hid with 4-year-old boy signs consent for procedure - Sun Sentinel

That judge and that father deserve charges of child abuse and assault with a deadly weapon should he purposely mutilate the boy for his own sick pleasure. That pos judge needs thrown off the bench...this is what happens when we allow judges get it in their head they can do as they please and it will never stop until the people start dishing out justice old south style.

Had to read that whole thing just to get to the actual reasoning behind it.

"Hunker has argued that the boy's urologist determined there is no medical need for the circumcision, nor are there any religious reasons for it.

Nebus has testified he decided in late 2013 the circumcision was necessary because the boy was urinating on his leg due to a condition called phimosis, which prevents retraction of the foreskin.

The mother's attorneys have pleaded in court that the procedure will put the child at risk of surgical complications, brain damage or death, because of a history of problems with general anesthesia and scarring."

Pee sitting down. Problem solved.

As to the phimosis,

"Phimosis is deemed pathological when it causes problems, such as difficulty urinating or performing common sexual functions. There are numerous causes of so-called pathological phimosis. Nonsurgical treatment involves the stretching of the foreskin, steroid creams and changing masturbation habits. Surgical treatments include preputioplasty and circumcision.

A Danish survey found that the mean age of first foreskin retraction is 10.4 years.

Rickwood, as well as other authors, has suggested that true phimosis is over-diagnosed due to failure to distinguish between normal developmental non-retractability and a pathological condition.[11][12][13] Some authors use the terms "physiologic" and "pathologic" to distinguish between these types of phimosis;[14] others use the term "non-retractile foreskin" to distinguish this developmental condition from pathologic phimosis."

Kid's just 4.5 years old. This might not even be an actual problem. Foreskin isn't supposed to be retracting for another 6 years or so.

Real men don't sit down to pee.

Ones who've been to jail and understand tactical considerations do.

 

[irosie91]

Circumcision case Jailed mom who hid with 4-year-old boy signs consent for procedure - Sun Sentinel

That judge and that father deserve charges of child abuse and assault with a deadly weapon should he purposely mutilate the boy for his own sick pleasure. That pos judge needs thrown off the bench...this is what happens when we allow judges get it in their head they can do as they please and it will never stop until the people start dishing out justice old south style.

Had to read that whole thing just to get to the actual reasoning behind it.

"Hunker has argued that the boy's urologist determined there is no medical need for the circumcision, nor are there any religious reasons for it.

Nebus has testified he decided in late 2013 the circumcision was necessary because the boy was urinating on his leg due to a condition called phimosis, which prevents retraction of the foreskin.

The mother's attorneys have pleaded in court that the procedure will put the child at risk of surgical complications, brain damage or death, because of a history of problems with general anesthesia and scarring."

Pee sitting down. Problem solved.

As to the phimosis,

"Phimosis is deemed pathological when it causes problems, such as difficulty urinating or performing common sexual functions. There are numerous causes of so-called pathological phimosis. Nonsurgical treatment involves the stretching of the foreskin, steroid creams and changing masturbation habits. Surgical treatments include preputioplasty and circumcision.

A Danish survey found that the mean age of first foreskin retraction is 10.4 years.

Rickwood, as well as other authors, has suggested that true phimosis is over-diagnosed due to failure to distinguish between normal developmental non-retractability and a pathological condition.[11][12][13] Some authors use the terms "physiologic" and "pathologic" to distinguish between these types of phimosis;[14] others use the term "non-retractile foreskin" to distinguish this developmental condition from pathologic phimosis."

Kid's just 4.5 years old. This might not even be an actual problem. Foreskin isn't supposed to be retracting for another 6 years or so.

Real men don't sit down to pee.

Ones who've been to jail and understand tactical considerations do.

never thought of that-------gee

 

[The Wolf]

the nazi in the republicans here is shining through. Hitler would be proud. Hell so would Stalin!

 

[The Wolf]

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

the nazi in the republicans here is shining through. Hitler would be proud. Hell so would Stalin!

You'll join them soon enough and then you can tell them how evil the Republicans are.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Circumcision is not genital mutilation. It's been done around the world for thousands of years. Has anyone ever seen an uncircumcised penis? It looks like some sort of deep sea creature.

I also suggest you Google the word "smegma" and tell me it's still better to be uncircumcised.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Circumcision is not genital mutilation. It's been done around the world for thousands of years. Has anyone ever seen an uncircumcised penis? It looks like some sort of deep sea creature.

I also suggest you Google the word "smegma" and tell me it's still better to be uncircumcised.

I see this "movement" on college campuses and I'm beginning to think we've solved all the real issues and kids these days are looking for new causes, including deciding to be butthurt over their parents decision to get them circumcised at birth. AIDS and malaria are killing millions, ISIS is slaughtering hundreds of Christians for their faith, capitalists are clear cutting forests in South America, but THIS BY GOD IS IMPORTANT!

The stupid things kids waste their passion on makes me pine for a return of the hippies of the 1960's. At least they actually protested something important.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

the nazi in the republicans here is shining through. Hitler would be proud. Hell so would Stalin!

You're the one pushing big government control of individual freedom where some men decide to have their sons cirumsized or not. The real control nazis are liberals like yourself.

 

[Darkwind]

By the way how in the world were authorities allowed to take a woman out of a battered women's shelter and immediately jail her? And how the hell does succumbing to the demand of an unnecessary medical procedure for her child get her out of jail? Isn't that coercion?

You keep saying that as if its an actual fact.

Provide proof that this procedure for this child is unnecessary.

Circumcision is an unnecessary procedure. Present proof that in this case it's necessary.

The situation arises from an agreement the parents signed years ago that "allowed for circumcision." An unnecessary procedure in almost all cases. But the husband feels imprisoning the child's mother to get it done is reasonable? And at age 4? The kid will remember the pain of the recovery, and grow up with the story that his jerk of a father wanted to jail his mother.

You didn't answer the question and then just went on a personal rant. How do you know there is not a medical need for this? The article does not say it is an elective. Regardless of whether or not it is, a 4 year old will NOT remember this. It is a rarity that anyone remembers much before the age of five and its usually six.

And please spare Me the lies about how you could remember being 4 years old.

 

[FA_Q2]

By the way how in the world were authorities allowed to take a woman out of a battered women's shelter and immediately jail her? And how the hell does succumbing to the demand of an unnecessary medical procedure for her child get her out of jail? Isn't that coercion?

You keep saying that as if its an actual fact.

Provide proof that this procedure for this child is unnecessary.

Circumcision is an unnecessary procedure. Present proof that in this case it's necessary.

The situation arises from an agreement the parents signed years ago that "allowed for circumcision." An unnecessary procedure in almost all cases. But the husband feels imprisoning the child's mother to get it done is reasonable? And at age 4? The kid will remember the pain of the recovery, and grow up with the story that his jerk of a father wanted to jail his mother.

Actually, she agreed to the procedure and then when the father was going to do it she decided that kidnapping the child was a proper course of action.

And then you point to the father as crazy.

Do you even understand what you are advocating here?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

By the way how in the world were authorities allowed to take a woman out of a battered women's shelter and immediately jail her? And how the hell does succumbing to the demand of an unnecessary medical procedure for her child get her out of jail? Isn't that coercion?

You keep saying that as if its an actual fact.

Provide proof that this procedure for this child is unnecessary.

Circumcision is an unnecessary procedure. Present proof that in this case it's necessary.

The situation arises from an agreement the parents signed years ago that "allowed for circumcision." An unnecessary procedure in almost all cases. But the husband feels imprisoning the child's mother to get it done is reasonable? And at age 4? The kid will remember the pain of the recovery, and grow up with the story that his jerk of a father wanted to jail his mother.

Actually, she agreed to the procedure and then when the father was going to do it she decided that kidnapping the child was a proper course of action.

And then you point to the father as crazy.

Do you even understand what you are advocating here?

We're seeing Leftist morality in action. They believe that ideology is imperative. No action can be deemed unjust as long as the intention was good and it serves their vision of utopia where everyone is living in dirt poor harmony like a Vietnamese village and every boy is uncircumcised. The ends justify the means no matter how criminal.

 

[TheOldSchool]

By the way how in the world were authorities allowed to take a woman out of a battered women's shelter and immediately jail her? And how the hell does succumbing to the demand of an unnecessary medical procedure for her child get her out of jail? Isn't that coercion?

You keep saying that as if its an actual fact.

Provide proof that this procedure for this child is unnecessary.

Circumcision is an unnecessary procedure. Present proof that in this case it's necessary.

The situation arises from an agreement the parents signed years ago that "allowed for circumcision." An unnecessary procedure in almost all cases. But the husband feels imprisoning the child's mother to get it done is reasonable? And at age 4? The kid will remember the pain of the recovery, and grow up with the story that his jerk of a father wanted to jail his mother.

You didn't answer the question and then just went on a personal rant. How do you know there is not a medical need for this? The article does not say it is an elective. Regardless of whether or not it is, a 4 year old will NOT remember this. It is a rarity that anyone remembers much before the age of five and its usually six.

And please spare Me the lies about how you could remember being 4 years old.

A quick google search will show you there is no medical issue involved in this case. The father is being a monster, and once again I have to remind myself not to be surprised when social conservatives support evil.

And yes, a 4 year old WILL remember the pain of surgery on his most private body part and a painful multi-month recovrry, you sick human being.

 

[TheOldSchool]

By the way how in the world were authorities allowed to take a woman out of a battered women's shelter and immediately jail her? And how the hell does succumbing to the demand of an unnecessary medical procedure for her child get her out of jail? Isn't that coercion?

You keep saying that as if its an actual fact.

Provide proof that this procedure for this child is unnecessary.

Circumcision is an unnecessary procedure. Present proof that in this case it's necessary.

The situation arises from an agreement the parents signed years ago that "allowed for circumcision." An unnecessary procedure in almost all cases. But the husband feels imprisoning the child's mother to get it done is reasonable? And at age 4? The kid will remember the pain of the recovery, and grow up with the story that his jerk of a father wanted to jail his mother.

Actually, she agreed to the procedure and then when the father was going to do it she decided that kidnapping the child was a proper course of action.

And then you point to the father as crazy.

Do you even understand what you are advocating here?

We're seeing Leftist morality in action. They believe that ideology is imperative. No action can be deemed unjust as long as the intention was good and it serves their vision of utopia where everyone is living in dirt poor harmony like a Vietnamese village and every boy is uncircumcised. The ends justify the means no matter how criminal.

Al-Salam alaikum you sick fuck.

 

[FA_Q2]

By the way how in the world were authorities allowed to take a woman out of a battered women's shelter and immediately jail her? And how the hell does succumbing to the demand of an unnecessary medical procedure for her child get her out of jail? Isn't that coercion?

You keep saying that as if its an actual fact.

Provide proof that this procedure for this child is unnecessary.

Circumcision is an unnecessary procedure. Present proof that in this case it's necessary.

The situation arises from an agreement the parents signed years ago that "allowed for circumcision." An unnecessary procedure in almost all cases. But the husband feels imprisoning the child's mother to get it done is reasonable? And at age 4? The kid will remember the pain of the recovery, and grow up with the story that his jerk of a father wanted to jail his mother.

Actually, she agreed to the procedure and then when the father was going to do it she decided that kidnapping the child was a proper course of action.

And then you point to the father as crazy.

Do you even understand what you are advocating here?

We're seeing Leftist morality in action. They believe that ideology is imperative. No action can be deemed unjust as long as the intention was good and it serves their vision of utopia where everyone is living in dirt poor harmony like a Vietnamese village and every boy is uncircumcised. The ends justify the means no matter how criminal.

Normally I would disagree but here you seem to be describing exactly what the thought process is - he must be a religious zealot (not because there is any actual evidence of that) and wrong and fuck all the actual and relevant details. All because it seems to agree with a political stance - one that makes no sense as well. To be against circumcision is asinine. To call it genital mutilation is bat shit crazy.

 

[FA_Q2]

By the way how in the world were authorities allowed to take a woman out of a battered women's shelter and immediately jail her? And how the hell does succumbing to the demand of an unnecessary medical procedure for her child get her out of jail? Isn't that coercion?

You keep saying that as if its an actual fact.

Provide proof that this procedure for this child is unnecessary.

Circumcision is an unnecessary procedure. Present proof that in this case it's necessary.

The situation arises from an agreement the parents signed years ago that "allowed for circumcision." An unnecessary procedure in almost all cases. But the husband feels imprisoning the child's mother to get it done is reasonable? And at age 4? The kid will remember the pain of the recovery, and grow up with the story that his jerk of a father wanted to jail his mother.

You didn't answer the question and then just went on a personal rant. How do you know there is not a medical need for this? The article does not say it is an elective. Regardless of whether or not it is, a 4 year old will NOT remember this. It is a rarity that anyone remembers much before the age of five and its usually six.

And please spare Me the lies about how you could remember being 4 years old.

A quick google search will show you there is no medical issue involved in this case. The father is being a monster, and once again I have to remind myself not to be surprised when social conservatives support evil.

And yes, a 4 year old WILL remember the pain of surgery on his most private body part and a painful multi-month recovrry, you sick human being.

Multi-month!

Your full ignorance on display.

 

[TheOldSchool]

By the way how in the world were authorities allowed to take a woman out of a battered women's shelter and immediately jail her? And how the hell does succumbing to the demand of an unnecessary medical procedure for her child get her out of jail? Isn't that coercion?

You keep saying that as if its an actual fact.

Provide proof that this procedure for this child is unnecessary.

Circumcision is an unnecessary procedure. Present proof that in this case it's necessary.

The situation arises from an agreement the parents signed years ago that "allowed for circumcision." An unnecessary procedure in almost all cases. But the husband feels imprisoning the child's mother to get it done is reasonable? And at age 4? The kid will remember the pain of the recovery, and grow up with the story that his jerk of a father wanted to jail his mother.

Actually, she agreed to the procedure and then when the father was going to do it she decided that kidnapping the child was a proper course of action.

And then you point to the father as crazy.

Do you even understand what you are advocating here?

The agreement was before the child was born and the dispute was years after. Did your father imprison your mother when he disagreed with her?

You know why Doctors can't perform the surgery without her consent? Because it's UNETHICAL! Conservative solution? Jail the mother until she submits. Bin Laden would be proud.

 

[TheOldSchool]

By the way how in the world were authorities allowed to take a woman out of a battered women's shelter and immediately jail her? And how the hell does succumbing to the demand of an unnecessary medical procedure for her child get her out of jail? Isn't that coercion?

You keep saying that as if its an actual fact.

Provide proof that this procedure for this child is unnecessary.

Circumcision is an unnecessary procedure. Present proof that in this case it's necessary.

The situation arises from an agreement the parents signed years ago that "allowed for circumcision." An unnecessary procedure in almost all cases. But the husband feels imprisoning the child's mother to get it done is reasonable? And at age 4? The kid will remember the pain of the recovery, and grow up with the story that his jerk of a father wanted to jail his mother.

You didn't answer the question and then just went on a personal rant. How do you know there is not a medical need for this? The article does not say it is an elective. Regardless of whether or not it is, a 4 year old will NOT remember this. It is a rarity that anyone remembers much before the age of five and its usually six.

And please spare Me the lies about how you could remember being 4 years old.

A quick google search will show you there is no medical issue involved in this case. The father is being a monster, and once again I have to remind myself not to be surprised when social conservatives support evil.

And yes, a 4 year old WILL remember the pain of surgery on his most private body part and a painful multi-month recovrry, you sick human being.

Multi-month!

Your full ignorance on display.

For a 4 year old, yes. Look it up you twisted freak.

 

[TheOldSchool]

By the way how in the world were authorities allowed to take a woman out of a battered women's shelter and immediately jail her? And how the hell does succumbing to the demand of an unnecessary medical procedure for her child get her out of jail? Isn't that coercion?

You keep saying that as if its an actual fact.

Provide proof that this procedure for this child is unnecessary.

Circumcision is an unnecessary procedure. Present proof that in this case it's necessary.

The situation arises from an agreement the parents signed years ago that "allowed for circumcision." An unnecessary procedure in almost all cases. But the husband feels imprisoning the child's mother to get it done is reasonable? And at age 4? The kid will remember the pain of the recovery, and grow up with the story that his jerk of a father wanted to jail his mother.

Actually, she agreed to the procedure and then when the father was going to do it she decided that kidnapping the child was a proper course of action.

And then you point to the father as crazy.

Do you even understand what you are advocating here?

We're seeing Leftist morality in action. They believe that ideology is imperative. No action can be deemed unjust as long as the intention was good and it serves their vision of utopia where everyone is living in dirt poor harmony like a Vietnamese village and every boy is uncircumcised. The ends justify the means no matter how criminal.

Normally I would disagree but here you seem to be describing exactly what the thought process is - he must be a religious zealot (not because there is any actual evidence of that) and wrong and fuck all the actual and relevant details. All because it seems to agree with a political stance - one that makes no sense as well. To be against circumcision is asinine. To call it genital mutilation is bat shit crazy.

When it's against a mothers will it may as well be mutilation.