Link

 

Judge's order temporarily blocks procedure

 

By Judy Peres

Tribune staff reporter

Published February 18, 2006

 

A Cook County judge Friday ordered a mother not to circumcise her 8-year-old son until the court can hear arguments from the child's father, who opposes the operation, and decide whether it is in the boy's best interests.

 

The mother, a 31-year-old homemaker from Northbrook, says two doctors have recommended the procedure to prevent recurrent infections. Her ex-husband, a 49-year-old building manager who lives in Arlington Heights, calls the operation an "unnecessary amputation" that could cause his son physical and emotional harm.

 

The Tribune is not naming the parents to protect the child's privacy.

 

Circumcision, in which the foreskin of the penis is surgically removed, usually before a newborn leaves the hospital, was extremely common in the U.S. during the last century. But the percentage of U.S. babies being circumcised has gone down from an estimated 90 percent in 1970 to some 60 percent today.

 

The American Academy of Pediatrics no longer recommends routine neonatal circumcision but says the decision should be left up to the parents.

 

In recent years, the procedure has come under fire from a small but vocal group who believe it is the equivalent of female genital mutilation. They argue, in an increasing number of legal challenges, that the procedure is medically unnecessary and morally indefensible.

 

There are no published U.S. opinions to serve as precedents for the current case.

 

Both sides appeared Friday in Cook County Circuit Court, where the father asked Judge Jordan Kaplan for a temporary restraining order against his ex-wife. His attorneys, John D'Arco and Alan Toback, argued that the couple's divorce agreement provided that the father had to be consulted before any non-emergency medical care.

".... two doctors have recommended the procedure to prevent recurrent infections."

 

Um, where's the problem? It's not like he's having it done for cosmetic reasons.

Her ex-husband....

 

That's all you need to know to understand why this is probably happening. Some people just can't get over a divorce and f*** with thier ex'es on everything, regardless of who else gets in the way. Love is a battlefield!

".... two doctors have recommended the procedure to prevent recurrent infections."

 

Um, where's the problem?  It's not like he's having it done for cosmetic reasons.

They didn't spell out the extent of the "infections" though. Your garden variety bacteria-induced smeggy buildup might qualify as an infection in the eyes of the mother and the doctors writing the opinions.

 

Don't know that's the case for sure. maybe the kid is just personal hygeine challenged.

This article makes me uncomfortable.

This article makes me uncomfortable.

Tell me about it. Makes me wonder what was going through the mind of the first person in history who decided to perform such an act. Yikes.

I'm uncomfortable just reading everyone's posts.

I'm uncomfortable just reading everyone's posts.

And I'm sure my reference to smeggy build-up helped a lot.

 

I did try to be as tasteful as possible in my description, but some topics you can only do so much with.

Maybe they should of thought of this s*** when the kid was born instead of deciding to do this later on in life.

 

 

Parents fighting over their sons foreskin in court is funny though. Just imagine if that gets back to the classmates. This kids life could be hell in high school.

Maybe they should of thought of this s*** when the kid was born instead of deciding to do this later on in life. 

Parents fighting over their sons foreskin in court is funny though.  Just imagine if that gets back to the classmates.  This kids life could be hell in high school.

 

Maybe he didn't have a rotten cock til now.