Mom signs consent for son's circumcision to get out of jail — but now faces new criminal charge

[Nine]

Source: Sun Sentinel

After months and years of fighting to stop her son from being circumcised, a West Boynton mother on Friday signed her consent for the procedure moments after a judge had again ordered her to remain in jail until she did.

...

A defiant Hironimus, 31, at first refused Friday to sign the form and was about to return to Palm Beach County Jail after Circuit Judge Jeffrey Dana Gillen granted full custody and parental decisions to the father for the time being.

But moments later, attorneys for the father, Dennis Nebus, were summoned back into the courtroom because Hironimus had changed her mind. Still wearing handcuffs, and weeping, she took a pen from her attorney, Thomas Hunker, and signed the consent.

...

Hironimus now also faces a criminal charge of interferring with custody, from her time keeping the boy from his father in an apparent violation of a custody-sharing agreement. The charge is a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in state prison for a conviction.

Read more: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/fl-circumcision-mother-court-hearing-20150522-story.html

---

Wearing handcuffs and weeping. Any doctor who performs the procedure under these circumstances is ethically bankrupt.

[cosmicone]

1. I don't know what the father's hard-on is about the circumcision

Is it religious?

It is really fucked up.

It looks almost like Sharia in the USA.

[PatSeg]

2. What a horror story!

Insane.

[Joe Chi Minh]

3. I hope the judge shows some discretion. She has obviously learnt not to mess with the law.

In fact, would it not be criminal to imprison her at all?

Not that it would be a rarity, among males jailed for peccadilloes, particularly, while caught in .... ahem.. possession.....

[StevieM]

4. Signing under those conditions is the same thing as not signing at all.

This woman did not legitimately grant consent.

And this judge is a bastard.

[Major Nikon]

13. Actually she did

Both parents signed a bilateral agreement which allowed for the child's circumcision. Now she is trying to unilaterally withdraw from the agreement. One federal and two state courts have decided against her.

[StevieM]

14. I am referring to the second signing that the judge demanded, something that he did so that

they could later lie to the child and say it was a mutual decision.

And I don't care what she signed (perhaps under duress the first time as well), she should have had the right to back out if she got new information.

I don't recognize a boy's penis as being legitimately subject to an "agreement."

[Orrex]

37. That's another accusation of fraud

I am referring to the second signing that the judge demanded, something that he did so that they could later lie to the child and say it was a mutual decision.

On what basis do you claim that the judge has conspired to commit perjury? That's a pretty heavy accusation.

And I don't care what she signed (perhaps under duress the first time as well), she should have had the right to back out if she got new information.

Again, her change of mind doesn't trump her previously signed legal contract. If "she got new information," then she should have pursued this through legal channels, rather than fleeing with the child in defiance of the custody agreement. Further, she could have stipulated that the original agreement was contingent upon getting "new information." Failing to make this stipulation, she didn't have the right to void the agreement after the fact.

[StevieM]

39. Lying to a child does not constitute perjury.

And once again, I don't recognize the moral legitimacy of signing a contract regarding a child's penis. If the law says that it works this way then I disagree with the law.

BTW, the judge also ordered, at an earlier point in this case, that the mother not be allowed to tell the son that she was against the procedure.

And isn't it interesting that they bring yet another charge against her right after they got the signature they wanted in exchange for supposedly dropping all the charges.

[Orrex]

43. Coercing an adult under false pretenses does

And once again, I don't recognize the moral legitimacy of signing a contract regarding a child's penis. If the law says that it works this way then I disagree with the law.

Your appeal to emotionalism is noted, but irrelevant, especially since you already agreed that it's not up to you. What is so magical about the penis that renders it impervious to law?

BTW, the judge also ordered, at an earlier point in this case, that the mother not be allowed to tell the son that she was against the procedure.

Citation, please. I'm working from memory here, but I believe that this is consistent with the consent agreement. Further, I believe that the judge was acting out of concern that the mother would use the surgery as a means to demonize the father. Considering that the mother has in fact broken the law and violated the father's custody rights, I'd say that this concern is justified.

And isn't it interesting that they bring yet another charge against her right after they got the signature they wanted in exchange for supposedly dropping all the charges.

Not really. Where does it say that they agreed to drop all the charges?

[StevieM]

54. I am saying that the law is a bad one. And all laws, to some extent, are based on emotions.

I already said that it makes no sense to say that an operation--any operation--should be considered locked in the moment paper work is signed.

There is a lot that is magical about a person's sex organs.

The mother has the right to let the boy know that she opposes this procedure. It is not legal to require her to lie to him or to expect her to simply have no comment on what has been done to his body.

The judge is just being a bully. He repeatedly said he would let her out of jail if she signed the consent form. That isn't the same as asking her not to obstruct the law. He was demanding that she validate the process and give off the appearance that she had recognized its moral accuracy. I see no reason to do this other than to deceive the child or to deceive a doctor.

And if a doctor doesn't need to be deceived, if the mother's "signature" along is enough, then that just proves that it isn't enough that she signed some paperwork way back when. There needs to be consent at the time the procedure is about to happen.

I also suspect that the father is starting to realize that his son my be angry with him in the future and wants to try to create a false appearance of joint agreement after a bizarre process had played out. I wonder if the mother will have to agree to lie to the child in order to get the charges dropped or to hold onto joint custody. So far, getting the mother to validate their lies seems to be very important to them.

I think it is safe to assume that the mother believed that all charges would be dropped in exchange for "signing" the document that allowed the procedure that she had so vehemently fought. But I guess I don't know for sure. There seems to have been a clear offer from the judge that if she gave them her much coveted "signature"--one that they felt they needed, since the first signature back in the day apparently wasn't good enough after all--that her legal problems would be resolved.

Here is the link you asked for.

http://touch.sun-sentinel.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-82992306/

[Orrex]

66. Pay wall.

A banner blocked about 2/3 of my screen, but thanks anyway for the link.

I already said that it makes no sense to say that an operation--any operation--should be considered locked in the moment paper work is signed.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works. If the agreement didn't allow for later reconsideration, then she shouldn't have signed it. If she changed her mind after the fact, she should have pursued the matter through legal channels, rather than denying the father's custody rights. Likewise, if she was coerced to sign against her will, then she should have pursued the matter through legal channels, rather than denying the father's custody rights.

There is a lot that is magical about a person's sex organs.

Poetry notwithstanding, can you cite a legal precedent to that end? What is it about the penis that supersedes legality?

The mother has the right to let the boy know that she opposes this procedure. It is not legal to require her to lie to him or to expect her to simply have no comment on what has been done to his body.

Depends on the agreement and the judge's ruling. Gag-orders and NDAs are commonplace, so I imagine that the same might apply here, especially if there is reason to believe that the mother might use this issue to foster resentment of the father.

The judge is just being a bully. He repeatedly said he would let her out of jail if she signed the consent form. That isn't the same as asking her not to obstruct the law. He was demanding that she validate the process and give off the appearance that she had recognized its moral accuracy. I see no reason to do this other than to deceive the child or to deceive a doctor.

That's one-sided speculation. The judge might have offered her that way out because jail time seemed absurd but was still appropriate under the law. Again, the time for her to object to the procedure was when she had the chance to sign off on the original consent agreement. If she changed her mind after the fact, she should have pursued the matter through legal channels, rather than denying the father's custody rights.

And if a doctor doesn't need to be deceived, if the mother's "signature" alone is enough, then that just proves that it isn't enough that she signed some paperwork way back when.

What judge would engage in such deception in such a now-public case? Deception of that kind would likely get him thrown off the bench. Also, it's entirely possible that her current consent is required as a guarantee that she won't later file suit against the physician who performs the procedure.

There needs to be consent at the time the procedure is about to happen.

Really? Where does it say that?

I also suspect that the father is starting to realize that his son my be angry with him in the future and wants to try to create a false appearance of joint agreement after a bizarre process had played out. I wonder if the mother will have to agree to lie to the child in order to get the charges dropped or to hold onto joint custody. So far, getting the mother to validate their lies seems to be very important to them.

That's simply speculation and yet another accusation of fraud.

I think it is safe to assume that the mother believed that all charges would be dropped in exchange for "signing" the document that allowed the procedure that she had so vehemently fought.

On what basis can we reasonably assume this? Regardless, an assumption carries very little legal weight.

There seems to have been a clear offer from the judge that if she gave them her much coveted "signature"--one that they felt they needed, since the first signature back in the day apparently wasn't good enough after all--that her legal problems would be resolved.

I don't believe it was stated that all charges would be dropped.

[StevieM]

70. At this point I have to be honest with you about something.

I was never that into this thread. But you put so much work into your posts, and often asked me specific questions, so I didn't want to be disrespectful and not reply.

I am a bit overwhelmed by the prospect of responding to all your points....rather than bashing the Duggar family, which has been my focus for the past 24 hours.

You made your points very well and raised some very interesting things for readers to consider.

I look at certain things differently than you do and have come to different assessments. And in some instances I agree with you about what the law is or appears to be...but I don't agree with the law as it currently stands.

I think circumcision is something that should largely cease to exist and I hope that some day that will happen.

[Orrex]

74. Thank you for the gracious words.

I've enjoyed our exchange--it's clear that you take the matter very seriously, and I appreciate your willingness to discuss it.

Now...

Where's this Duggar thread? I'd be happy to join forces with you and blast that fucked up sicko.

[StevieM]

77. LOL, there are about 25 of them (at least) that have all been started in the last 24 hours.

And let's not forget that the parents helped to cover it up. That was what the thread I started was about.

Seriously, go to the General Discussion page. They are everywhere. There is just so much to talk about: the hypocrisy of gay bashers, the nature of the quiver (no birth control) movement, the treatment of women as existing to serve men, etc.

Here is a link to the thread I started in LBN yesterday when the story was breaking.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141100027

And another from today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026713220

Also, go to the front page of DU. They have pictures of Josh Duggar with SEVEN GOP presidential candidates.

[Nine]

44. re: "Again, her change of mind doesn't trump her previously signed legal contract."

So if she had signed something agreeing to have a hysterectomy and then changed her mind about the surgery two years later, would you be in favor of forcing that surgery on her against her will?

[Orrex]

49. That comparison is obviously false.

In your hysterectomy example, who is the other adult who signed the agreement? Was that other adult subsequently awarded sole or primary decision-making authority in the matter? No? Then your comparison is meaningless.

Again, when Sallie Mae objects to my decision not to repay my student loans, I'll direct them to you so you can explain to them why I shouldn't be forced to pay them against my will.

[Major Nikon]

40. It already was a mutual decision

The father already was awarded sole custody due to the mother's actions. The only thing her signature did was get her out of jail, albeit temporarily it seems.

Three different courts didn't seem to think she had a right to back out.

[StevieM]

45. First of all, my point is that the courts are wrong IMO. I do think she should have been allowed to

back out. This is the permanent cutting of a boy's penis. If he wants to be circumcised, he can do it when he is older. Of course, by then he might want the additional nerve endings and the sexual pleasure they give.

The point about the signature is exactly what you are saying. It wasn't legally required. It was done either to deceive the child, or to create a ridiculous narrative that the mother "admitted" she was in the wrong, or to make a reluctant doctor more likely to be willing to perform the procedure.

[Major Nikon]

56. How do you know the courts are wrong when nobody here has all the facts?

Nobody here knows what the exact custody arrangements were or what was agreed to by both parties regarding medical decisions for the child. One thing I'm pretty sure about is that those courts did have access to that information and they ruled against the mother.

The signature was required to release the woman from her contempt of court charge. Coming up with any reason beyond that is speculation.

[StevieM]

57. I don't always agree with the law and even if the courts had the right

to take that position, I think the law should be different. If a mother is saying that she doesn't want the procedure done then that should be the end of it. I don't care whether she had signed some paperwork at an earlier date.

I agree that it is speculation as to why they wanted her to sign. I have no problem with that. I think we should speculate in this case, given the level of bullying that was involved.

It is not speculation that this woman was bullied into signing a document that made it appear that she was granting consent to something that she clearly was looking to consent to.

[cstanleytech]

58. She was not bullied, she was just ordered to comply with

what she had already agreed or face the legal consequences just like for example a father who agrees to pay child support but then says "Oh, I have changed my mind." and refuses to should be held accountable.

[StevieM]

62. First of all, they didn't need her signature since they could have simply ruled against her, which

they already did. That's why I believe they wanted her to make it easier for the father to deceive a doctor into believing this is somehow something the mother has consented to. And probably so that they can lie to the child too and say that it was a joint decision.

I am not willing to treat circumcision like just another contract. A person has the right to sign paperwork and then later decide not to go through with the medical procedure after all.

[cstanleytech]

71. Clearly they did need it still otherwise she wouldnt have been be facing potential jail time.

And I would agree with you about the medical procedure completely if this was a surgery that was going to be conducted on her, it wasnt however.

[Orrex]

16. Plenty of arrangements are contingent upon avoiding jail time.

Hell, a straight up guilty plea in exchange for probation rather than jail time is the same thing as we're seeing here.

What makes you think that the woman in this case did not legitimately grant consent?

[StevieM]

18. Because she wasn't honestly looking for her son to be circumcised. The point to the signing

is to make it appear that everyone finally came to recognize the legitimacy of this decision.

That's not what happened here. The decision was made by the father and the courts.

The judge wanted her signature--even though he didn't need it--in order to deceive doctors who might be otherwise hesitant to perform the operation.

[Orrex]

20. Did she or did she not sign the original consent agreement?

The judge wanted her signature--even though he didn't need it--in order to deceive doctors who might be otherwise hesitant to perform the operation.

You're claiming that the judge is willfully committing medical fraud. What is the basis of this accusation?

[StevieM]

21. That isn't the subject of this thread. The thread is about whether the mother truly backed down

and dropped her objection to the circumcision, which is what the judge is trying to make it appear has happened.

As for the original consent, I don't know what happened there, but I don't recognize that a piece of paper being signed resolves the issue. If a parent is telling a doctor that she doesn't want the procedure done then it shouldn't be done.

[Orrex]

25. You summarily dismiss a legal contract? That's very interesting.

I'll call Sallie Mae and tell them that I won't be repaying my loans, and when the object, I'll send them to you for an explanation. You can tell them how a piece of paper being signed doesn't resolve the issue.

If a parent is telling a doctor that she doesn't want the procedure done then it shouldn't be done.

If the parent has changed her mind and no longer gives her consent, then she should pursue the matter through legal channels. Her change of mind doesn't trump the signed contract.


Further, you accused the judge of willfully committing medical fraud, but you haven't backed up this accusation. Can you back it up, or are you abandoning that claim?

[StevieM]

27. I don't recognize that a child's penis is subject to a "legal contract."

The doctor should require consent from both parents at the time the procedure is being done.

I don't believe I accused the judge of medical fraud. I said he was trying to create a deceptive appearance to a doctor who might be hesitant to perform the operation.

[Orrex]

32. Well, it's hardly up to you.

I don't recognize that a child's penis is subject to a "legal contract."

By making that emotional assertion, you are claiming that parents have no obligation to make medical decisions on a child's behalf. Such parental obligation is a legal contract, after all, and unless you're mysteriously focused solely on the child's penis, you need to explain why certain medical decisions are subject to this legal contract and others are not.

I don't believe I accused the judge of medical fraud. I said he was trying to create a deceptive appearance to a doctor who might be hesitant to perform the operation.

You accuse him of deceiving a physician in order to effect a certain medical outcome. That's a pretty clear accusation of medical fraud, unless you have another term for it.

[StevieM]

36. I am aware that it is not up to me.

The law played out the way it played out. And I find the law to be disgusting.

I didn't think of medical decisions as being subject to a contract. It never occurred to me that if a parent signed documents authorizing a medical procedure, but then changed their minds before the procedure began, that it would be considered controversial due to a previous signing of paperwork.

I don't think the term medical fraud is being properly applied here....but I guess I could be wrong. Either way, it seems clear to me that the judge was trying to extract a signature from her that the court said was not legally necessary. I can think of no reason to do that other than to create a false appearance of consent.

[rock]

59. The first thing I thought when I read this

[riderinthestorm]

5. The boy has risk factors for seizures and keloids with the surgery!

The father and the judge are despicable for continuing this atrocity for an elective procedure!!

[happyslug]

22. That was NOT brought up in the trial....

It was pointed out to me that allegations that this was medically necessary was also NOT brought up in the trial. Both sets of "Facts" just do not EXIST in this case.

Here is the opinion of the Judge in this case and his findings of facts in this case:

http://circumstitions.com/Docs/hironimus1.pdf

[riderinthestorm]

46. The child doesn't have any medical condition requiring circumcision

he does have a history of seizures coming out of surgery and keloid scarring.

Here's a picture of one of his scars from a leg wound

https://www.facebook.com/ChasesGuardians/photos/a.840709239279418.1073741827.840261872657488/1048671821816491/

Now imagine that all over his penis...

[Nine]

47. I am the one who pointed that out.

It's not just that phimosis was "not brought up" in the original trial, it's that the urologist's testimony that there was no medical necessity for the surgery proves that the husband's claim to the media is a lie. Keloids and anesthesia issues were also not brought up in the original trial, but they have been brought up by the new lawyer in court documents, and I have seen pictures on the Chase's Guardians site said to be the boy's keloid scars, so I tend to think this fact is true and that the mother simply had a poor lawyer the first time.

[perdita9]

6. Circumcision can be done for medical reasons

In some males the foreskin is too tight

[closeupready]

12. But he's not Jewish. Thus, no, there is NO satisfactory

explanation.

[subterranean]

15. But not usually on 4-year olds.

It is quite normal for the foreskin to still be unretractable at that age.
And even when that problem does occur, there are other, less drastic solutions available.

Anyway, there does not seem to be any medical necessity in this particular case. If there was, I don't think the mother's consent would be required.

[perdita9]

82. True, but the article didn't say WHY it was being done

I just wanted to make the point that sometimes these procedures are done for medical reasons, not religious

[Laser102]

7. Traumatizing a four year old for this?

For what? No medical condition that I can see. Just a crazed father that wants his way. Hurting a child for no good reason. He and this judge should be locked up.

[Orrex]

10. And on top of that, he has a mom who wasn't willing to go to jail for his sake

Who then wound up going anyway only after she'd given in.

Quite a sorry state of affairs.

[Nine]

24. She DID go to jail for his sake.

I don't see what more she could have done to fight this.

[Orrex]

28. She copped a plea to get out of going to jail for his sake.

She's now potentially going to jail not by choice (i.e., not for the boy's sake) but because she violated the father's custody rights.

I don't see what more she could have done to fight this.

She could have opted not to sign the agreement in the first place. Having signed it, she could have sought an injunction from the court to prevent the father from acting upon the agreement until the matter had a full review and hearing.

She did the one thing that she shouldn't have done, which is to flee with the boy in order to act as she had agreed to act.

[Nine]

48. It doesn't sound like you are familiar with the history of this case. (nt)

[Orrex]

50. I imagine that it's easier for you to think that's true.

[closeupready]

8. I fully support her. In my non-lawyer opinion, she has caselaw on her side.

Roe v. Wade, "Her Body, Her Choice", shifting public opinion ... whatever she needs, I'm pretty sure she's on solid ground.

Further, I'd like to see a ruling which changes the landscape on this issue.

Male Genital Mutilation.
Female Genital Mutilation.

Same thing.

[Android3.14]

17. Except that it isn't

With FGM there are no medical benefits and the purpose is to control the victim's sexuality for life. With circumcision, the benefits are there.

Granted, this particular case is just stupid, and the real issue is the idiocy between the parents' ears, but equating the relatively benign procedure of circumcision with the horror of FGM does a disservice to the effort to eradicate that particular evil.

[Doremus]

52. What are the medical benefits of circumcision?

Preventing penile cancer? Why don't we give preemptive mastectomies to little girls? The thought of it is preposterous, huh? But why? Females actually have a much higher chance of contracting breast cancer than males do of getting penile cancer. If it's so good for our sons, why are we ignoring our daughters?

Bladder infections? They happen just as often in little girls. Surely there's a surgical procedure we can perform on them too? Why are we neglecting them?

The fact is, 85% of the rest of the world gets along pretty well without mutilating their children.
Yet our society thinks nothing of physically restraining our precious baby boys and tearing their foreskin off in a barbaric, cruel procedure that's essentially nothing more than cosmetic surgery.

Thankfully more and more people are becoming aware of the facts and saying NO when hospitals and doctors pressure them (of course the fact that they make money from the procedure has nottttthing to do with peddling it)

[Android3.14]

78. You say circumcision is not only equivalent to FGM

but it is also the same as double mastectomies.

Oh sure, reasoned debate is going to work here.

[Orrex]

19. Absolutely not the same thing at all.

Male Genital Mutilation.
Female Genital Mutilation.

Same thing.

That is an ignorant statement that reveals you know nothing about either procedure.

Roe v. Wade, "Her Body, Her Choice", shifting public opinion ... whatever she needs, I'm pretty sure she's on solid ground.

It's much less clear than you seem to think. I don't see how Roe v. Wade has any bearing here. Since the child is unable to give consent, his parents are called upon to act on his behalf, and the mother gave consent by signing the agreement.

[closeupready]

23. NOPE. Wrong answer.

[Orrex]

26. Oh?

Last edited Fri May 22, 2015, 05:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Your comparison between circumcision and female genital mutilation is both ignorant and wrong-headed. I invite you to demonstrate that I am incorrect in this assessment.

Your invocation of Roe v. Wade is both ignorant and wrong-headed. I invite you to demonstrate that I am incorrect in this assessment.


Simply stomping your feet and crying "NOPE" is hardly a cogent rebuttal.

[Nine]

31. Why isn't it the same thing?

There are different types of female circumcision. One type is directly analogous to male circumcision. Some forms, such as a ritual nick, are far less drastic than male circumcision but are still illegal in the US.

If female circumcision suggested some medical benefits, would you then support it?

[Orrex]

35. Then the distinction must be made by the claimaint.

Otherwise it's deceptive equivocation.

The comparison was made between female genital mutilation and male circumcision. NOT between one specific type of female circumcision and male circumcision. The failure to distinguish between the various surgical alterations of female genitalia is intellectually dishonest, especially if the post hoc claim amounts to "I was really only referring to one specific example of the many general things to which I referred."

If female circumcision suggested some medical benefits, would you then support it?

As formulated, that question is too vague to answer.

What, exactly, do you mean by "female circumcision" in this context?
What, exactly, do you mean by "suggested" in this context?
What, exactly, do you mean by "some medical benefits" in this context?
What, exactly, do you mean by "support it" in this context?

[Nine]

51. Then you acknowledge that they can be equivalent?

Do you acknowledge that removal of the male prepuce (foreskin) is medically equivalent to removal of the the female prepuce (clitoral hood)? And if so, isn't performing the procedures on minors who cannot consent also morally equivalent?

And are you saying there are circumstances under which you'd support female circumcision of a child?

[Orrex]

64. I don't believe that that was my assertion.

Last edited Fri May 22, 2015, 06:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Do you acknowledge that removal of the male prepuce (foreskin) is medically equivalent to removal of the the female prepuce (clitoral hood)?

I'm not in a position to give an informed assessment in that regard. Nor, as near as I can tell, are you.

And if so, isn't performing the procedures on minors who cannot consent also morally equivalent?

Since I can't assess the medical equivalence of the two, I can't speak to their moral equivalence. An infant isn't in a position to consent to the parents' choice of language or their choice to vaccinate; would you have me weigh the moral equivalence of circumcision against teaching a child Spanish?

However, it is clear that many forms of female genital mutilation are not medically equivalent to male circumcision, and in those cases they aren't morally equivalent, either.

[closeupready]

9. And it's been said before, but what kind of deity demands mutilation

of the genitals in order to be a real human?

A cruel and sadistic one.

[happyslug]

30. One theory says it had to do with AIDS.

Those people who embraced MALE Circumcise lived longer then those males who did not, when both sets of males were in an area where AIDs exists. This is without any other medical treatment for AIDs.

This goes along with a lot of "Taboos" in what use to be called "Primitive societies". Those tribes that embraced certain "Taboos" did better then tribes that did not embraced those 'Taboos". Thus the "Taboos" became part of their religion, and often stay as part of their religion long after the reason for the "Taboo" is gone.

Another mechanism is style, but since most people do not show their genitals to everyone on the street, I do not think style was the reason (One tribe had blue penis, it is believed the reason was it became the style to have a blue penis in their society, and those men without one could not get a wife, thus style drove that tribe to have 100% blue penises).

[wordpix]

34. in a desert, it's hard to wash up between the oases

That could have had something to do with this Jewish tradition. Or maybe it was a mark to prove a male is a member of the Hebrew tribes.

Nowadays I don't see the point.

[closeupready]

38. I'm not understanding the AIDS theory. AIDS is contemporary

whereas practices regarding circumcision go back millennia. ??

[happyslug]

61. AID being SPREAD is new, its actual age is debatable.

Just because we have no records of it, does not mean it did not exist. It may have been an isolated disease like Syphilis, that reached an unexposed body of people and took Europe by Storm in the 1500s.

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/10/1454.full

As to AIDs at the earliest know cases are from 1959, and at least one researcher traced AIDS back to 1884:

Four of the earliest known instances of HIV infection are as follows:

A plasma sample taken in 1959 from an adult male living in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 11
A lymph node sample taken in 1960 from an adult female, also from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 12
HIV found in tissue samples from an American teenager who died in St. Louis in 1969. 13
HIV found in tissue samples from a Norwegian sailor who died around 1976. 14
A 1998 analysis of the plasma sample from 1959 suggested that HIV-1 was introduced into humans around the 1940s or the early 1950s. 15

In January 2000, the results of a new study 16 suggested that the first case of HIV-1 infection occurred around 1931 in West Africa. This estimate (which had a 15 year margin of error) was based on a complex computer model of HIV's evolution.

However, a study in 2008 17 dated the origin of HIV to between 1884 and 1924, much earlier than previous estimates. The researchers compared the viral sequence from 1959 (the oldest known HIV-1 specimen) to the newly discovered sequence from 1960. They found a significant genetic difference between them, demonstrating diversification of HIV-1 occurred long before the AIDS pandemic was recognised.

The authors suggest a long history of the virus in Africa and call Kinshasa the “epicentre of the HIV/AIDS pandemic” in Central Africa. They propose the early spread of HIV was concurrent with the development of colonial cities, in which crowding of people increased opportunities for HIV transmission. If accurate, these findings imply that HIV existed before many scenarios (such as the OPV and conspiracy theories) suggest.

http://www.avert.org/origin-hiv-aids.htm

Thus it is possible for AIDs to have existed for decades (and even centuries) before it was detected. Most people who died of AIDs prior to the 1970s were simply reported to have died of something else (AIDs technically does not kill you, it so weakens your body defense systems that you die from some other infection, in fact AIDS was first discovered when a large group of gay males were found dying of infections that they should have been able to fight off without any medical intervention).

SIV,Simian immunodeficiency viruses, was believed to be just a few hundred years older then AIDS, but now it appears to be at 32,000 years old:

http://discovermagazine.com/2011/jan-feb/20


One paper, after destroying theories that ancient disease in Egypt and Judea were AIDS, points out one of the dieseae associated with AIDS (one of the optimistic dieseae that kills people with AIDs) is reported as early as the 1860s along with symptoms that would be produced by AIDS (and also reports that other characteristics of AIDS is NOT present, but that may be they were not looked for).

The author then reports that just after 1900 you have patients who died under what would indicate an HIV infection:

https://books.google.com/books?id=eDTBbgRbcwYC&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=aids+ancient+history&source=bl&ots=ds_5HTVypp&sig=IPU5CaLG62LU6KVRW4EzxAqydsw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OI5fVceENaXLsASDoIKYAQ&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=aids%20ancient%20history&f=false

Thus AIDS may be ancient, it existed clearly pre 1900, but how old is an open debate. THe problem with AIDs is it was just not reported for people died of something else and until the Post WWII era, people who died of rare disease were just dismissed as unlucky not subject to a disease that weakened them so they die of diseases that they normally live through.

[Chemisse]

72. It looks like a bit of a leap of logic to date AIDS back centuries.

But either way, since it wasn't recognized until the 1980s, it could not have had an affect on circumcision practices, which have been in place for a very long time.

[happyslug]

81. You do understand the theory of evolution do you?

Last edited Thu May 28, 2015, 01:00 AM - Edit history (1)

Under the theory of evolution, living things will transmit they genes to their off springs by surviving and reproducing. During reproduction change incur in the genes and these are either good or bad. If bad the offspring dies out, if good the off spring has a better chance of producing off spring themselves.

Now, man is a thinking animal but the rules of evolution applies even to his thinking process. Thus a man who embraces a belief system that provides for him (or her) a better chance to reproduce is also a product of evolution. The mechanism is the same, if the belief system is beneficial, it helps the person reproduce, if it is NOT beneficial, the belief system will die out.

Circumcision may have evolved as a response to AIDS, i.e. those groups that embraced male circumcision had less chance of coming down with AIDs and thus living longer then people who did not embrace circumcision. This longer life permitted a better chance to leave off offspring.

Now, this would only work with groups that are exposed to AIDS. Those groups NOT exposed to AIDS, Circumcision would offer no advantages. Thus the Arabs and Ancient Egyptians adoption of Circumcision (and its spread among Semitic people like the people of Ancient Carthage) may have acted a a barrier to AIDS. i.e the people who most embraced Circumcision, the Arabs and other Semitic Cultures (This includes the Jews, Egyptians and Ancient people of Carthage) would be a barrier AIDS could not cross over, thus the people of Greece and Rome and the rest of Europe did NOT have any advantages if their embraced Circumcision and thus did not.

The Zoracasteric religion may have restricted the spread of AIDS to Ancient India. When Persia turned Moslem, Iran embraced circumcision, so added to the barrier between Africa and the rest of the world as far as AIDS was concerned.

I bring this up, for knowing about AIDS is NOT needed if your society embraces mechanism that controls its spread. Knowledge of the disease is unimportant in the theory of evolution, it is how things adjust to its environment and changes in that environment that is the key to evolution. As far as Human's go, that includes embracing concepts that minimize hazards. Thus people who bath daily survive better then people who do not (Except during periods of extreme cold, then NOT bathing can be advantages, as it appears to have been during the Dark Ages of Europe).

Thus those groups that embraced circumcision had a better chance of reproduction, but only in areas where AIDS either existed OR entered every so often. That Europe never embraced Male Circumcision would imply Male Circumcision had no advantage in Europe. Circumcision being embraced by Semitic Cultures and later Islam indicates that Male Circumcision had advantages to them. Thus WHO and WHERE Male Circumcision was common may be an indication of AIDS having a long life.

Side Note: SIM(Simian Version of AIDS) is at least 30,000 years old, yet according to recent records it only involved into AIDS within the last 100 years (the Earliest PROVED cases are from 1959, but they are indications AIDS existed as early as 1884). This leaves two possibilities, first AIDS is a very old disease maybe as old as SIM (30,000 years old) OR SIM has produced versions of AIDS in the past, but they all died out. Either way, it would have exposed Human Beings to SIM and either AIDS or a proto AIDS in the distant past and thus those people who embraced male Circumcision survived better then those people who had not embraced Circumcision.

The theory of evolution, that you are a product of your environment and you are the product of interacting with that environment over the last 100,000 years, also includes that you are the product of successful reproduction over that 100,000 years (Which is when modern Humans is generally understood to have evolved from Human Erectus, some estimates think it is closer to 150,000 years ago).

Part of that evolution is reacting to disease, including not only treatments for diseases but also ways to avoid such diseases. Some of these methods to avoid disease are things we just do, being Human some of these things are just Traditions. Islam did NOT invent Circumcision among Semitic people, Male Circumcision among Semitic people is older than Islam. Mohmand embraced the concept and made it part of Islam for it was already part of the Arab Pagan Culture. Something was driving the adoption of male Circumcision before that date, and the fact the Jews also adopted Circumcision as did ancient Egyptians indicate it was adopted for some reason that favored those people who embraced it over people in the same area who did not. Thus the best explanation for Male Circumcision among the Arabs is that it was an Anti-AIDs tool, but a tool the Arabs did not understand they were embracing for the Arabs themselves never understood that AIDS existed. Reality and survival of the Fittest is what drive Evolution NOT logic or knowledge.

[Android3.14]

11. Looks like the stupid is in both branches of the tree

[Sunlei]

29. Judge "granted full custody and parental decisions" to Father. Now she has no say in the med. issue

She is still in a lot of trouble for "interfering with custody".

[McCamy Taylor]

33. Any doctor who performs it now is getting sued the moment the kid turns 18.

Meaning the dad will have to go out of state or even country and lie to a doctor to get it done.

[Orrex]

41. On what possible grounds?

All it would take to throw that lawsuit out of court is one physician willing to go on record that the procedure was medically justified. Are you aware of even a single successful lawsuit filed by a child against his parents for having him circumcised?

[cstanleytech]

60. Since the court ordered the mother to comply with the agreement she had

already made I suspect that any doctor will be shielded via the qualified immunity clause.
The kid could try to sue his parents for agreeing to it in the first place but I wouldn't be willing to wager even a penny on his winning the case.

[happyslug]

65. For what? You can only sue for MONEY DAMAGES and any damages here would be speculative

And when it comes to speculative damages the courts value that at zero. The child will have to show some actual monetary harm to himself do to this procedure. Does it affect his ability to reproduce? No. Does it reduce his ability to get married? Speculative at best, i.e value is Zero, does it reduce his ability to appear in a porno movie? Maybe, but how much will that reduce his value as an adult porno star? (Remember we are talking of an 18 year, that is the age he can sue). Unless there is a ready market of circumscribed and uncircumcised males and the money earned by uncircumcised is greater, the child MAY have a case, but if circumcised males get paid better or the same then the damages is Zero or less then Zero.

On top of that his doctor will have the right to ask for contributions from his father, i.e. the father wanted it done and it was done and now that it has caused the son "harm" if the doctor is liable, so is his own father to the doctor. The Father will be able to demand contributions from his mother, for she HAD agreed to it before she opposed it.

This is why lawsuits of a child against someone else, when that person did something the parent wanted done and is considered legal AND you can argue it was good for the child, never go to far. The parents REQUESTED the procedure and they can justify the procedure on some grounds.

This is NOT like the parents agreeing that the child can play football (or get a tattoo), neither is a medical procedure, if the child gets hurt he or she can still sue the school (or if the child no longer want the tattoo he or she can sue the tattoo parlor) and that fact that the parents said it was OK can not protect the person being sued. These are NOT like taking the Child to School or a Hospital. In fact parents are REQUIRED to take Children to Schools and Hospitals under certain conditions.

Sorry, a lawsuit, in theory is possible, but the end result will either be a dismissal of the Lawsuit or a judgment against his parents not the Doctor.

[Kali]

42. what are the respective arguements from each parent?

why does the father want the procedure and why does the mother object?

yes obviously the mother's objections would seem to make a hell of a lot more sense, but I am missing some info on this story.

and if they aren't married why the hell did she give the father any say in anything?

[deathrind]

63. I wonder...

What is her objection to having this done? I have friends who have not had this done and UTI's are a regular part of their life. Is she objecting just because it is what the ex wants or is there another reason for her objection.

[COLGATE4]

67. Yes. She wants to piss the Father off. nt

[deathrind]

68. I was just asking so I could understand

both sides of this story because there are two sides to every story and I have not seen anything in any of the articles on this story explaining why she is fighting it. Not meaning to come across as sexist.

[Nine]

76. Why is it so hard to believe the mother is sincere?

Why is her only possible motive to spite the father? Do you know how many families have older circumcised sons and younger sons who are not circumcised because the parents learned more about it and changed their stance?

[TerrapinFlyer]

69. The Mother's actions allowed the judge to give solo custody to the Father.

That means the Father gets to decide.

If you can't get the basic facts of this case, then you are acting just like the Mother -- defiant of the law.

When two parents become so far apart that they can't agree on the welfare of a child, the court has to decide which parent is being "more" responsible. The judge decided.

If you don't agree with the judge's decision.. I don't care.

[delta17]

73. As a guy,

I don't think a kid should be circumcised at age 4. The dad is being unreasonable. Yeah, they may have had an agreement, but sometimes you have to bend a little. It sounds like this poor kid is being used as a pawn.

[madokie]

75. I was about 4 YO

when they took the knife to me and I remember it. I remember my brother who was 8 at the time was deemed to be too old but I sure wasn't. All of us 13 kids were born at home so not sure how many of my brothers actually had this done to them. I don't really care to know either, as far as that goes. LOL

Just thought I'd throw that out there for you all to ponder about

I'm 67 YO now.

[TDale313]

79. If it's true that the boy had complications

From previous surgery, I genuinely don't understand subjecting him to this. It seems dangerous and cruel and not in his best interest, and that should be more important than the parenting agreement IMO. I don't really know how this works, but it would be nice if he had his own advocate independent of the parents' interests.

[riderinthestorm]

80. Your right, this situation screams out for a guardian ad litum nt