Circumcision battle: Mom seeks release from jail after federal lawsuit is dismissed
Source: Sun Sentinel
A West Boynton mother on Wednesday gave up trying to get a federal judge to stop her 4 1/2-year-old son from being circumcised as his father wishes — a battle that also led to her arrest May 14 on a state court warrant.
...
Hunker said they quit the federal lawsuit because it appeared hopeless, in light of a hearing Monday where the judge repeatedly questioned the justification for a case already decided by state judges.
"Unfortunately, Judge Marra was not only not sympathetic, he seemed quite hostile toward our position," the attorney wrote in a message shared by circumcision opponents and posted on a Facebook page dedicated to the boy and his mom.
...
"This is a potentially life-and-death situation," Hunker said, arguing the child doesn't respond well to general anesthesia and is prone to scarring that could further harm his genitals if he survives. He said the removal of the foreskin from the boy's penis is not "reversible" and violates his right to bodily "integrity."
Read more: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/fl-circumcision-federal-suit-dismissed-20150520-story.html
I know that protecting children's genital integrity is, for some reason, a big joke to some on this "progressive" message board, but I hope at least a few people will be moved by this story. I find the whole thing heartbreaking and surreal. History will not look kindly on this.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
lark
(23,065 posts)Our son was not circumcized. Doctor recommended against it, thought it would cause issues in this instance, and I never wanted it done, so we all ended up on the same page.
Orrex
(63,172 posts)I wonder what circumstances previously caused the boy to placed under general anesthesia.
Nine
(1,741 posts)Boynton
(16 posts)How old was the boy when she agreed on the circumcision? Was it before or after the alleged anesthesia incident?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)i really want to know the name of the doctor who does the surgery.
That needs to be public knowledge.
The father should be ashamed of himself for taking this, this far.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)My son had to get circumcised in the end due to phimosis when he was 5. He was under local anesthesia.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)It is NOT just for convenience or tradition. I can NOT find it now, but this is a procedure the Child's Doctor is recommending for health reasons. Other then the doctor's directive the Courts would have stayed out of this decision.
Nine
(1,741 posts)As you can see, Chase's own urologist, Dr. Flack, testified that it was NOT medically necessary. The phimosis story is something the father has spread in the media but you won't find it in the official court document I linked to.
Luxadvector
(18 posts)At 3 years old, when I was adopted by my grandparents, they opted to perform a circumcision. I remember screaming and screaming and screaming. I remember the medication, a white paste, having to be put on me.
This isn't medically necessary. Why do we do it? Don't tell me it's cleaner, I've seen some nasty people who were circumcised. The real reasons is a RELIGIOUS COVENANT BETWEEN THE JEWS and THEIR GOD. WTF?
Nine
(1,741 posts)In the rest of the world, most circumcisions are probably for religious religions (Judaism and Islam). In America it became nearly universal only in the last century because some whack job thought it would "cure" masturbation. Today it's "a treatment in search of a disease," as I've heard it described.
Orrex
(63,172 posts)Or so I'm told. 
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)
Boynton
(16 posts)?
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Boynton
(16 posts)I dont think it will be white paste.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Talk about a string of bad decisions...
blackspade
(10,056 posts)The father should let this go.
If the child was still an infant, that would be another conversation.
Nine
(1,741 posts)Chase was a young one-year-old when the agreement was made. It was a throwaway paragraph in a lengthy parenting contract, and it gave the father permission to make the arrangements for cutting the son in a "timely manner." The father did not take any action for the next two years. In the interim, the mother learned more about circumcision and began to oppose it. That's when it suddenly became so important to the father - when Chase was a young three-year-old. The father has publicly claimed phimosis, but the boy's own urologist has denied this in court.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)it's a child, not a car.
V0ltairesGh0st
(306 posts)Last edited Fri May 22, 2015, 03:17 PM - Edit history (1)
The father should be ashamed of himself for wanting to force this on the boy.
Yes i did misread it... sadly.
Nine
(1,741 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)I didn't have it, and my brother always felt strange that my Dad and I were uncircumcised, but somehow they decided he would be. He's 59 now and still pissed off about it.
There really is no big danger to being uncircumcised - I mean, before religion raised it's ugly head, nobody was circumcised and I don't remember there being a huge issue about it. Just fucking teach the kid how to wash his dick like he washes the rest of his body. It only takes a few seconds. When the child gets old enough to understand circumcision, and he want's it, let him do it - it's his penis for gods sake!
Chances are almost 100% that he will NOT want to be mutilated.
You can always get cut, but reversing it is not so simple, if not impossible.
V0ltairesGh0st
(306 posts)is as problem worldwide and both boys and girls suffer from it. Infants given no choice about the most crucial parts of their bodies being lopped off, or sewn together is the sad product of religious dogmatic tradition than t is anything else. It saddens and disgusts me.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)But the most troubling thing to me is that the American Medical Association thinks this is some magical cure-all for HIV/AIDS. I say none of your FUCKING business! I never got cut, I'm 60 years old, and I have been (extremely) sexually active my whole life.
A cure in search of a problem. The problem IS the cure!
happyslug
(14,779 posts)An English doctor when he first started to run across AID cases in the 1970s remembered an old case from 1959. Once a test for AIDS came out, he went back to some samples of the mysterious death in 1959 and it tested positive for AIDS. Thus it is, to my knowledge, the earliest AIDS case that I know of. It involved a young 18 or something sailor who on his first voyage went to Leningrad from England. He came back and started to complaint of all types of symptoms that are similar to AIDS. The treating doctors did all they could but he died on them, but the doctor kept some samples of his body back for later testing for why he died was unknown to them. Thus the doctor had something to test when a test for AIDS came out.
Technically they are two types of AIDS, Type 1 and Type 2, Type 2 is harder to transmit between people and take longer to manifest itself, Type 2 is restricted to West Africa and rarely found elsewhere.
Type 1 is further divided into Four Groups, M, N, O and P.
90% of all AIDS cases are Type 1, Group M.
Group M is divided into various strains, A, B, C, D, F, G, H, J, K, and "CFRs". (CFR are "circulating recombinant forms" which are "two viruses of different subtypes can meet in the cell of an infected person and mix together their genetic material to create a new hybrid virus (a process similar to sexual reproduction, and sometimes called "viral sex" but is NOT sex is the normal sense of the word, for Virus can best be explained as "escaped DNA", they reproduce by attaching to a host cells DNA and having the host cells make more versions of the Virus as opposed to making another set of DNA for cell division.
Sub-type A and CRF A/G predominate in West and Central Africa, with subtype A possibly also causing much of the Russian epidemic.
Historically, sub-type B has been the most common sub-type/CRF in Europe, the Americas, Japan and Australia and is the predominant sub-type found among MSM infected in Europe. Although this remains the case, other sub-types are becoming more frequent and now account for at least 25 percent of new HIV infections in Europe (Type B is the type of AIDS most spread by Homosexual contact or intravenous needles, it depends on blood to blood contact).
Sub-type C is predominant in Southern and East Africa, India and Nepal. It has caused the world's worst HIV epidemics and is responsible for around half of all infections. (This variation of AIDS is the type most common in Heterosexual transmissions via the Mucous membrane, skin that cover organs exposed outside the body, Nostrils, month, Lips, Eyelids and the Anus and genital areas).
Sub-type D is generally limited to East and Central Africa.
CRF A/E is prevalent in South-East Asia, but originated in Central Africa. This sub-type is spread mostly by Heterosexual contact like Sub-type C.
Sub-type F has been found in Central Africa, South America and Eastern Europe.
Sub-type G and CRF A/G have been observed in West and East Africa and Central Europe.
Sub-type H has only been found in Central Africa;
Sub-Type J only in Central America; and
Sub-type K only in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Cameroon.
At present no one has found a "Sub type "E", but something combined with Sub-type A to produced what is called CRF A/E. Thus CRF A/E is a closely related to Sub-type A, but is also different.
http://www.avert.org/hiv-types.htm
One early theory about AIDS was that the reason for the difference between the AIDS in South East Asia and Africa was they were two related virus that were introduced into a new environment and exploded for all of the controls to contain it did not exist in the new environment. This is what happened with Small Pox in the New World after 1492. The native population of the New World had no immunity to Small Pox AND they have NOT developed social protections that kept Small Pox at bay. i.e. Europe had been going to small stand alone homes instead of large houses for the whole tribe do to the fear of Small Pox and other "Plagues", It took a long while for Native Americas to adopt the same type of social protection.
If AIDS sub-type "A" was a Russian or Central Asiatic disease kept in check by increase local immunity AND social checks on its spread, then it hitting Africa and Asia when the Soviet Union started to send in Military advisers it would be like Small pox in 1492, no immunity population living is a style that help spread the disease.
That the other Versions of AIDs appear to have come from Africa only show they have been isolated from the Sub Type "A" not that all AIDs sub-types came from Africa.
Remember, present theory holds modern man came out of Africa only 100,000 years ago. Earlier versions of man went before that date, but modern man only about 100,000 years ago. DNA studies have shown Germanic/Celtic people returned to North Africa about 6000 years ago and merged with the ancestors of the modern Barbers of West Africa (They get an occasional blond for this reason). The Vandals moved into Carthage around 450 AD and took over the West Africa to Europe trade route, thus introducing another group of blondes but also showing that the movement of people from West Africa to Europe was NOT uncommon, rare, but not uncommon in the days of Rome.
Thus it is possible for AIDs to go from West Africa to Europe to Asia where it developed into Sub-type A, while the other sub-types would stay within the African Population.
You had massive movement of people in the times of Migration, roughly 350-700. We have no record of what happened in West Africa, but given the break down at the fall of the Roman Empire, that lost of trade must have been disruptive. Then Islam moved into Africa in the 600s peaking in 750s and the Arabs thought nothing of recruiting African (and buying Africans as slaves) and shipping them to Europe and the Middle East and Central Asia.
According to this theory, no matter HOW AIDS arrived in slowly became Sub-Type "A" and maybe even Sub-Type "E" (the unknown sub-type that seems to be the cause CRF A/E, or worse, sub-type "E" is the Central Asiatic version of AIDS and that is why it has not been found). Worse, Sub-Type "E" may not even be a killer version of AIDS, until it merged with Sub-Type "A". i.e CRF A/E is a killer, but E is not.
Now, there are several ways to attack AIDS, first is to look for a cure or a vaccine. Scientist are working on that, but as a general rule that was NOT an option prior to about 1700s when Jennings showed Vaccines could prevent Small Pox.
On the other hand, socially can adjust themselves to handle disease. Rome, in its days of Glory had the best water system to the World, both to bring in water for people to drink, cook and bath with, but also to wash away all of the faith such a concentration of people brings with it. The Ancient Jews and Arabs forbade the use of Pork, for being desert people the main restrictions on they action was water and pigs use as much water as a human being. Thus for every pig you had, you had to have one less person in your tribe and that made the tribe weaker then a tribe that opt for a person over a pig. Thus a desert tribe that banned pigs would be larger and stronger then a desert tribe that kept pigs. Sooner or later the tribes that kept pigs either moved to a place where water was NOT the shortage, gave up on pigs OR was pushed aside by a stronger tribe, which was stronger for they had no pigs.
Of all of the Ancient Religions of Asia, the followers of Zoroaster were the most Anti-homosexual. Even the ancient Jews seems NOT to have been Anti-Homosexual
The other story of an attack on Homosexual is in Leviticus 19. It is in a list of forbidden sexual relations, i.e father-daughter, mother-son, niece-uncle etc. All are treated the same, both parities are to be killed. The problem is how do you prove any of these crimes? In the one case where a Slave is forced to have sex with her master, even through she is promised to another, she is NOT subject to death. Why? For they want her to TALK and inform on her master. As to the other crimes, neither party is exempt from execution. The reason is none of these crimes can be proved without one of the participates saying it occurred. To DISCOURAGE such reports the punishment of death is on both of them. Thus it is NOT a list of people who one is to kill, but a list of things you should NOT do in the privacy of your home, but if you do both parties better be agreeing to it for if they do not they can arrange for your execution by saying you forced them into the act. I.e Do NOT tell us, but it better be voluntary by both parties for we will forgive a victim but not a willing participate.
Thus BOTH Leviticus 19 and the Story of Lot are aimed at people being FORCED TO have sex as opposed to a voluntary sexual act. It should be noted that Lot later committed one of the sins subject to death in Leviticus not once but twice and produced two sons from that act.
I bring this up for Leviticus is presently believed to come to its present form under the rule of Persia over Judea. That is important for the Persian ruling elite were followers of Zoroaster at that time period and Zoroastrianism adopted a very harsh view on Homosexuality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism_and_sexual_orientation
The Jews saw the Persians as their liberators from the hated Babylonians and like most people in that situation tended to adopt ways of their liberators. The wording in Leviticus is similar to the Avesta. The problem is this hatred of Homosexuality is not reflected in the early parts of the Old Testament, homosexuality is accepted (as in the story of Lot) but NOT not condemned (i.e. God's problem with Sodom and Gomorrah had more to do with they lack of respect for strangers then they desire to have sex with the Angels sent to get Lot out).
Just a side note that the Anti-Homosexuality in the bible is limited and seems to come from outside sources.
Now, the Anti-Homosexual attitude of Zoroastrian Persia could reflect a response to Sub-Type A among its Homosexuals. The Arabs and Jewish adoption of male Circumcision may reflected a method to handle AIDS. i.e. Religion followed reality, Arabs and Jews adopted Circumcision for it reduced the number of people who died who died. Thus these two lines Zoroastrianism and then Arabic and Jewish tradition isolated AIDS, once it arrived in Central Asia, from heading south. Islam replaced Zoroastrianism in Iran starting in the 600s, but even today a small number still survive in Iran, but that can be seen as a people who hated Homosexuals (and that way containing AIDS) be replaced by belief system that embrace circumcision that appears to be a better check on AIDS.
As to Western Europe, We have an increase immunity (but not COMPLETE IMMUNITY) from Aids as you north and east from the Mediterranean sea. You do NOT develop an immunity unless you are exposed, this is the strongest evidence that AIDS is Eursian, or at least sub-type A is.
You also see a stricter definition of homosexuality in Northern Europe. In the Mediterranean to Afghanistan area a man who penetrates another man is NOT a homosexual, but the man he penetrates is. Northern Europe rejects this rule, calling both homosexuals. This stricter rule and increase immunity may have restricted AIDS going West. The restrictions the Russians put on their peasants moving starting under Ivan the Terrible in the 1500s, and decreasing only marginally under the Last Tsars, and then Lenin and being reinstated under Stalin was another mechanism that kept AIDS in check, probably in a group which had evolved an increase immunity to it (and that immunity slowly spread westward).
Just a comment that Circumcision may have been part of a system to contain AIDS and it was fairly effective even through the people embracing it did not know why it extended their lives. If that is the case religion embraced it after it was shown to be "good". It may have been so good that AIDs never made it to Ancient Greece or Rome (and if it did quickly died out).
That the Arabs embraced Circumcision may explain, if AIDS is a strictly African Disease, it remain an African disease till the 1970s. AIDS could not penetrate the Arab Circumcision in North Africa till the Portuguese found a way to get around North Africa and that the Arabs controlled the trade routes even after the Portuguese arrived kept AIDS in check (and if AIDS escaped via West African #1 Export of that time period, Slaves, the bad conditions on the Slave ships quickly lead to rapid death of anyone with AIDS and no transmission of the disease while on those ships.
After 1800s when Europe started to move into West Africa, any one who caught AIDs, quickly died of it, thus containing it. It took Jet Travel for people to live long enough with AIDs to spread it to the US, Europe, Japan and the rest of the world. This could explain the 1959 case, the sailor may have picked it up in Russia, but from a prostitute who had picked it up from someone from Africa, but all three were dead within a year and the circle of victims died with them (Given how bad Soviet medical care was the only one who saw a doctor before their died may have been the young sailor when he arrived back in England).
While the massive variation of AIDs shows a long existence time in Africa, that 90% of the victims are Group M seems to indicate Sub-type A of Group M is new to Africa and supports my central Asiatic theory. Even the Russian report AIDs arrived in Russia via a Jet Plane (like the US, after AIDS was found to be in the US, they traced the outbreak and traced the introduction to one person who arrived in the USSR like the person who introduced it into the US by Jet Plane).
Circumcision may have kept AIDS restricted to a small part of the globe, and the religions that supported Circumcision should be credited for that restriction, Jet Travel outdid the restriction, whether the base was in Central Asia or Africa.
7962
(11,841 posts)But they also say its up to the parents. There is ample evidence that it lessens the spread of HIV, as well as other diseases. It also lessens the chances of penile cancer and UTIs, although both of those are rare anyway.
They stop short of recommending it. And they are at odds with pretty much the entire rest of the world in not recommending against it. The Canadian Paediatric Society, for example, states, "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."
http://www.circinfo.org/doctors.html
Since the 1970s medical authorities in all these countries have been faced with the problem of stopping a harmful tradition that their colleagues in an earlier and poorly-informed age initiated so thoughtlessly. Accordingly, they have issued a succession of official statements and policies that recommend against routine (i.e. medically unnecessary) circumcision of normal male infants and boys.
As for reducing the risk of diseases:
https://cdn.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds
Reality check: Consider breast cancer: There is a 12% chance that a woman will get breast cancer in her lifetime. Removal of the breast buds at birth would prevent this, and yet no one would advocate doing this to a baby. It is still considered somewhat shocking when an adult woman chooses to have a prophylactic mastectomy because she has the breast cancer gene, yet this was a personal choice done based upon a higher risk of cancer. The lifetime risk of acquiring HIV is less than 2% for men, and can be lowered to near 0% through condom-wearing (Hall 2008). How, then, can we advocate prophylactic circumcision for baby boys?
Science and data do not support the practice of infant circumcision. Circumcision does not preclude the use of the condom. The adult male should have the right to make the decision for himself and not have his body permanently damaged as a baby.
7962
(11,841 posts)You're correct that they dont actually say "do it". But they think its a good idea
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/103/3/686.full
Again, the chances of getting UTI infections may be greater uncircumcised but the chances are still low, as the studies show.
Incidences of HIV are reduced as well, which has been shown in many studies and which is a much bigger deal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=169249
http://www.jhsph.edu/news/stories/2006/gray-circumcision.html
But i'd say if youre gonna do it then do it while the kid is an infant.
And its a culture thing as well. Almost every woman Ive ever dated long enough to get to the point of her knowing, have told me they thought an uncircumcised penis was "odd" to them or they didnt like the look. But a girl from Europe had no misgivings at all. Not that I've been with 100 women or anything, thats just my personal observation.
And of course Elaine from Seinfeld thought they didnt have any "personality".
Nine
(1,741 posts)MDs all over the world oppose circumcision. America is practically the last holdout that still clings to this bizarre and archaic medical practice from the Victorian era (other than those countries where it's mostly done for religious reasons). And many US doctors oppose the practice as well, including
Doctors Opposing Circumcision (http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement0.html),
Dr. Spock (http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/spock.html),
Dr. Sears (http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/pregnancy-childbirth/tenth-month-post-partum/deciding-whether-or-not-circumcise-your-baby-boy),
etc.. The AAP statement, moreover, generated a lot of controversy and opposition among many MDs. Circumcision rates have been falling in this country for a long time. Eventually circumcision is going to be viewed in the same way as many other shameful medical practices that have been abandoned.
But i'd say if youre gonna do it then do it while the kid is an infant.
But "if you're gonna do it" is the whole problem. There is no way of knowing whether an infant "would have done it anyway" when he reached adulthood. Most uncircumcised males do not choose circumcision in adulthood. And even if a man does, there are actually strong medical benefits to having it done as an adult rather than as an infant. There is much less room for cutting error on a tiny, flaccid newborn penis than on an erect adult penis. The foreskin is adhered to the glans on an infant and has to be ripped apart before cutting; this isn't necessary with adults. Those are just two reasons, there are more if you do the research.
Nine
(1,741 posts)Here is the AAP policy.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/585.full
As I said, they stop short of recommending it, although they definitely want insurance to cover it. I suppose it's a matter of semantics as to whether they "support" it. It certainly leans more in that direction than I am comfortable with. And, as I also said, that puts them out of touch with the medical community in the rest of the world and with many doctors in this country. So if someone wants to "trust MDs" they should not limit that to the small number who crafted the AAP 2012 policy statement. Trust me, the US will catch up to the rest of the world eventually. Circumcision for "medical" reasons will go the way of lobotomies and bloodletting.
