Mother Jailed For Refusing Circumcision Order

[Flutterguy]

Kidnapping is against the law.

[Drsolders]

Kidnapping is against the law.

Pretty much the only thing that matters in this thread right here. It doesn't matter her intentions, she kidnapped the child.

[THE Bigzoman]

inb4 jelly circs claim circumcision cures cancer.

Infracted. Don't post "inb4" posts

But...But....

How else will we prevent black men from raping white women?!

- - - Updated - - -

That is an incredibly untenable way to argue against circumcision. And I feel I don't have to back that statement up with anything other than this; all you lose is some skin in one, in the other...well.. unless you have some weird tumor on the end of your pinky that you are mistaking for the end of your pinky, just give it a little squeeze.


-- Also, as a circumcised male, I can confirm that I am still totally capable of feeling when things happen to and around my penis.

Great.

Now imagine that sensation with one of your most sensitive erogenous zones in tact.

[zknm7]

i think it was more a question of her not giving custody to the father to have the surgery
she can't just steal the boy away so he cant have the surgery

but...she shoulda got married and stayed married before having kids...
her fault

Are you fucking kidding me? She "shoulda" got married and stayed married before having kids? That's horseshit, and it has nothing to do with this issue. It's one thing to circumcise a baby, it's quite another to circumcise a 4 year old boy.... I can't imagine the terror and anguish that he will feel... IMO, circumcision should not be done once infants are past a certain age unless there's some kind of medical issue that necessitates it, if an adult man who has not been circumcised wishes to be and makes that decision for himself, that's one thing, but to inflict it upon a four year old boy just "because his father wants it" is bullshit, and it's pretty damn obvious that this man is only trying to inflict suffering upon the mother of this child, with zero regard for the feelings and wishes of his young son. The judge sounds like a real asshole too, trying to basically bar the mother from going public or receiving financial help from others in order to protect her child.... if you're in the right, "Honorable" Jeffrey Gillen, then why would you order the mother in this case to keep silent? Afraid of the public backlash? You're a fucking asshole.

[THE Bigzoman]

Are you fucking kidding me? She "shoulda" got married and stayed married before having kids? That's horseshit, and it has nothing to do with this issue. It's one thing to circumcise a baby, it's quite another to circumcise a 4 year old boy.... I can't imagine the terror and anguish that he will feel... IMO, circumcision should not be done once infants are past a certain age unless there's some kind of medical issue that necessitates it, if an adult man who has not been circumcised wishes to be and makes that decision for himself, that's one thing, but to inflict it upon a four year old boy just "because his father wants it" is bullshit, and it's pretty damn obvious that this man is only trying to inflict suffering upon the mother of this child, with zero regard for the feelings and wishes of his young son. The judge sounds like a real asshole too, trying to basically bar the mother from going public or receiving financial help from others in order to protect her child.... if you're in the right, "Honorable" Jeffrey Gillen, then why would you order the mother in this case to keep silent? Afraid of the public backlash? You're a fucking asshole.

Judges can't permit a mother to receive funding for kidnapping and violating a contract.

[Deleted]

I don't understand this case. How can a judge initially have rule either for or against circumcision? As in, how could such a case even be brought to them? Surely the only thing that matters at any time is that whoever is the legal guardian/custodian of the child gets to decide and take responsibility?

[Jimson]

I don't understand this case. How can a judge initially have rule either for or against circumcision? As in, how could such a case even be brought to them? Surely the only thing that matters at any time is that whoever is the legal guardian/custodian of the child gets to decide and take responsibility?

The judge isn't ruling specifically that the boy be circumcised... he's ruling that the contract the 2 parents signed be upheld, which in turn means the boy will be circumcised. A minor difference, but an important one. Life lesson: don't sign a contract you may regret in the future.

For the record, according to this article, 2 doctors have suggested that the procedure will benefit the boy.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...guardians.html