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

[RoshawnMarkwees]

When mom aborts a baby it's her choice. When a father is granted custody of a child it's still all about mom's choices?
Sexism thrives in feminism.

 

[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?

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.

Again, as has already been mentioned, HE does not jail anyone. The police do when, you know, do something illegal like kidnapping. Still avoiding that reality I see.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

I don't have to - my son was circumcised later than normal (around 3). I see that you STILL have no idea what you are talking about.

Keep wallowing in your ignorance in the subject.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Really.

So now the mothers idiocy and insanity change the definition of words?

Do we really need more proof that you really are doing what saint claimed you were.

 

[TheOldSchool]

When mom aborts a baby it's her choice. When a father is granted custody of a child it's still all about mom's choices?
Sexism thrives in feminism.

It's all about BOTH'S choices. Well unless you're a religious extremist lime Bin Laden in which case the mother gets beaten or jailed for disagreeing.

 

[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.

Again, as has already been mentioned, HE does not jail anyone. The police do when, you know, do something illegal like kidnapping. Still avoiding that reality I see.

The mother should have sued the father and held this up for years until the child was old enough to either tell the father to fuck off or go ahead with.

And it's not a coincidence charges were dropped after the mother submitted you dunce.

 

[hipeter924]

Agree. If he wants it done when he turns of age go for it. His body his choice. That judge and that fathers obsession with this child's genitals is disturbing to say the least.

This is one thing about Jews and Muslims I don't agree with, but the fact is that it isn't illegal for parents as legal guardians - or a judge, to require a non-life threatening procedure.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Agree. If he wants it done when he turns of age go for it. His body his choice. That judge and that fathers obsession with this child's genitals is disturbing to say the least.

This is one thing about Jews and Muslims I don't agree with, but the fact is that it isn't illegal for parents as legal guardians - or a judge, to require a non-life threatening procedure.

I couldn't agree more. Except when a father attempts to take unilateral action involving jailing the mother of his child. That's something I except to hear about from the middle east, not America.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Again, as has already been mentioned, HE does not jail anyone. The police do when, you know, do something illegal like kidnapping. Still avoiding that reality I see.

The mother should have sued the father and held this up for years until the child was old enough to either tell the father to fuck off or go ahead with.

And it's not a coincidence charges were dropped after the mother submitted you dunce.

Dropped?

According to who?

Dunce - now that is laughable from the one demanding that definitions are based on the crazy mother and ignoring that she kidnapped the child.

All in an effort to make this about religious zealotry based on nothing.

 

[Two Thumbs]

she committed a crime.

So she could have all the say and the father have no say.

The bitch should be in prison for 20 years for kidnapping.

lets be clearer; You support a heartless criminal that would let their child see it's father.

leftist, always fall for the spin and not the facts

The father threatens to jail the mother if she doesn't let him commit unnecessary surgery on their child, 4 years after the surgery is typically performed. The child will remember the pain, and will remember that his mother tried to protect him. But social conservatives, as usual, decide to take a stance that would be typicl of an Islamic zealot living in the middle east.

you are suck a vile sub human pile of filth.

and you are proud of the fact that you support criminal filth and lie to defend your stance.

As-Salam Alaikum Two Thumbs.

no bullshit you say will surpass the absolute fact that you support a kidnapper.

You support an evil person that did emotional harm to a child that will last the rest of it's life.

You are one evil fuck

You support an evil person that wants to jail a child's mother and mutilate her son. Hmm what cultures are the ones that threaten to imprison mothers for disobeying men?

You are one evil fuck. Allahu Ackbar you c*nt.

You are unable to be honest, this comes as not shock.

she was not in jail for what you say, she was charged for what she did, and that was kidnapping.

you are evil in every country, in every society, in all of history.

 

[TheOldSchool]

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.

Again, as has already been mentioned, HE does not jail anyone. The police do when, you know, do something illegal like kidnapping. Still avoiding that reality I see.

The mother should have sued the father and held this up for years until the child was old enough to either tell the father to fuck off or go ahead with.

And it's not a coincidence charges were dropped after the mother submitted you dunce.

Dropped?

According to who?

Dunce - now that is laughable from the one demanding that definitions are based on the crazy mother and ignoring that she kidnapped the child.

All in an effort to make this about religious zealotry based on nothing.

Oh so not only didn't you read the article, you also didn't read the responses in the thread. Good job.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The father threatens to jail the mother if she doesn't let him commit unnecessary surgery on their child, 4 years after the surgery is typically performed. The child will remember the pain, and will remember that his mother tried to protect him. But social conservatives, as usual, decide to take a stance that would be typicl of an Islamic zealot living in the middle east.

you are suck a vile sub human pile of filth.

and you are proud of the fact that you support criminal filth and lie to defend your stance.

As-Salam Alaikum Two Thumbs.

no bullshit you say will surpass the absolute fact that you support a kidnapper.

You support an evil person that did emotional harm to a child that will last the rest of it's life.

You are one evil fuck

You support an evil person that wants to jail a child's mother and mutilate her son. Hmm what cultures are the ones that threaten to imprison mothers for disobeying men?

You are one evil fuck. Allahu Ackbar you c*nt.

You are unable to be honest, this comes as not shock.

she was not in jail for what you say, she was charged for what she did, and that was kidnapping.

you are evil in every country, in every society, in all of history.

She was released upon submitting to the husband. As a good muslim, you should be thrilled. Al-salam alaikum.

 

[Two Thumbs]

you are suck a vile sub human pile of filth.

and you are proud of the fact that you support criminal filth and lie to defend your stance.

As-Salam Alaikum Two Thumbs.

no bullshit you say will surpass the absolute fact that you support a kidnapper.

You support an evil person that did emotional harm to a child that will last the rest of it's life.

You are one evil fuck

You support an evil person that wants to jail a child's mother and mutilate her son. Hmm what cultures are the ones that threaten to imprison mothers for disobeying men?

You are one evil fuck. Allahu Ackbar you c*nt.

You are unable to be honest, this comes as not shock.

she was not in jail for what you say, she was charged for what she did, and that was kidnapping.

you are evil in every country, in every society, in all of history.

She was released upon submitting to the husband. As a good muslim, you should be thrilled. Al-salam alaikum.

the charges were dropped, it was a deal, should could have stuck to her convictions, but she knew she was wrong.

and again, nothing you can say, will divert from the fact that you are a historically evil person. No society has ever approved of kidnapping, but you do.

you are nothing

 

[TheOldSchool]

As-Salam Alaikum Two Thumbs.

no bullshit you say will surpass the absolute fact that you support a kidnapper.

You support an evil person that did emotional harm to a child that will last the rest of it's life.

You are one evil fuck

You support an evil person that wants to jail a child's mother and mutilate her son. Hmm what cultures are the ones that threaten to imprison mothers for disobeying men?

You are one evil fuck. Allahu Ackbar you c*nt.

You are unable to be honest, this comes as not shock.

she was not in jail for what you say, she was charged for what she did, and that was kidnapping.

you are evil in every country, in every society, in all of history.

She was released upon submitting to the husband. As a good muslim, you should be thrilled. Al-salam alaikum.

the charges were dropped, it was a deal, should could have stuck to her convictions, but she knew she was wrong.

and again, nothing you can say, will divert from the fact that you are a historically evil person. No society has ever approved of kidnapping, but you do.

you are nothing

When given the choice between running away, or succumbing to legal threats from a scumbag to perform unnecessary surgery on the life of someone whose importance you hold far above yours, what would you do?

And yes what a great example this dad is. That's how every good father should solve arguments with the mother of their child, allow them to escape jail if they submit to him. How many lashes do you think he should give her as punishment for defying him?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Ah Two Thumbs I finally understand your beliefs! This video explained everything!

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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.

The only reason you support the mother and not the father is because this is some stupid notion of a small minority and you fucking liberals have no core values that allows you to disagree. This is nothing but supporting your voting base. Just like supporting gay marriage when the idea of gay sex revolts you.

 

[TheOldSchool]

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.

The only reason you support the mother and not the father is because this is some stupid notion of a small minority and you fucking liberals have no core values that allows you to disagree. This is nothing but supporting your voting base. Just like supporting gay marriage when the idea of gay sex revolts you.

You would make a good Mullah. Al-salam alaikum.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

The only reason you support the mother and not the father is because this is some stupid notion of a small minority and you fucking liberals have no core values that allows you to disagree. This is nothing but supporting your voting base. Just like supporting gay marriage when the idea of gay sex revolts you.

You would make a good Mullah. Al-salam alaikum.

Sucks to your assmar.

 

[TheOldSchool]

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.

The only reason you support the mother and not the father is because this is some stupid notion of a small minority and you fucking liberals have no core values that allows you to disagree. This is nothing but supporting your voting base. Just like supporting gay marriage when the idea of gay sex revolts you.

You would make a good Mullah. Al-salam alaikum.

Sucks to your assmar.

BarakAllahu feek my friend. Now go please your husband before he lashes you.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

The only reason you support the mother and not the father is because this is some stupid notion of a small minority and you fucking liberals have no core values that allows you to disagree. This is nothing but supporting your voting base. Just like supporting gay marriage when the idea of gay sex revolts you.

You would make a good Mullah. Al-salam alaikum.

Sucks to your assmar.

BarakAllahu feek my friend. Now go please your husband before he lashes you.

Wife, actually, and she lashes me when I've been good.