Heather Hironimus has been in hiding for two months with her child. She has spent years trying to protect her son, Chase. It’s what good mothers do. She was arrested and booked into Broward County Jail for doing just that.
Unfortunately, a Palm Beach County judge and the boy’s father have other plans for the four-year-old child - they want him circumcised.
Chase was born in 2010 and parents Heather Hironimus and Dennis Nebus signed an agreement that said Nebus would be responsible for paying for and scheduling the circumcision. However, once Nebus got around to doing so, Hironimus had changed her mind and wouldn’t allow the toddler to undergo the elective procedure. The mother stands strong that circumcision is not medically necessary and the risks of general anesthesia are far too great. However, the boy’s father has won over the opinion of a judge and the circumcision has been court ordered.
Following that decision, Hironimus ran to a shelter for women, where she stayed with her son for two months in an attempt to avoid handing him over to have his genitals cut. Unfortunately, after her attorney was required to divulge her whereabouts in court documents, authorities showed up at the shelter to arrest the mother for contempt of court. They then handed Chase over to his father so the surgery can be carried out.
In April, a federal civil rights lawsuit was filed and claims Chase has expressed that he does not want circumcision and is afraid of being forced to have the procedure, however, the courts, nor his father, care about the child’s opinion.
While routine infant circumcision is still a cultural norm in the United States, it is hotly debated topic. The procedure carries little to no medical benefit and is mostly perpetrated through aesthetics and myths. However, this is not a debate about routine infant circumcision. This is about a court ordering a parent to permanently alter the body of a four and a half-year-old.
The fact is, this little boy has lived over four years with an intact foreskin. There is no medical indication for the procedure, making it elective and even considered cosmetic. At no other time would a court order force a parent to opt for such an elective procedure.
Can you imagine?
What if two parents disagreed on having their child tattooed or pierced? Would the court then side with the parent wishing to tattoo or pierce the child? Or perhaps even more persuasive, what if this was a mother who was sheltering her daughter from a father who wanted the girl’s genitals cut?
Well, we already know the answer to that – as it is against federal law to carry out such an act on a girl. (Which is a good thing.)
Why shouldn’t Chase receive equal protection?
The organization Chase’s Guardians is currently raising funds for the legal costs associated with this case. Updates are also provided on the Facebook page Chase’s Guardians.
Watch the report from Local10 below:
Featured image via Twitter
The father has what is called Adamant Father syndrome, its a predictable phenomenon with an almost unbreakable pattern where the father’s circumcision status is the reason for him inflicting it onto his children. The fathers that do this do it to affirm their OWN circumcision status, it has NOTHING to do with their concern of supposed benefits. Its related to ego and emotion and has almost basis on anything weighed on reasoning.
It is of no surprise that a circumcising culture would enforce it onto a child, well done Florida, you impress the rest of the country once again….
I also see it as a power struggle between the parents. they are putting the child in the middle. Unfortunately, not unusual.
My husband served in the Army many years ago. There was a soldier in his barracks who insisted that the Army dentist remove all his perfect teeth because he wanted false teeth just like his daddy and grand daddy had!!!
Clearly two a**holes wielding their power over the woman to keep her in her place. Wouldn’t want either for my dad. Poor kid.
I was “cut” when I was 4, and I have not yet forgiven my mother for allowing it.
No child should be cut after infancy unless there is a legitimate medical reason for it.. a serious infection or other similar problem. It’s bad enough in infancy (and unnecessary then).. but at 4? Horrible.
No child should be cut at any time. Let them decide when then become an adult whether they want to undergo genital mutilation.
delete “after infancy” and you’re correct.
No, circumcision is NOT any longer the cultural norm in this country. Within certain religions and ethnic groups, yes. In general now in America, no.
That’s not true, it is THE most common medical procedure performed in this country and that is a great tragedy.
Why is it tragic?
Mutilating young boys is big business in America, what about that ISN’T tragic? What’s worse is that nobody cares.
It does nothing harmful in almost every case, and substantially lowers risk factors in other cases. Are ear piercings mutilation? Because they’re less painful, they don’t count?
Your logic doesn’t fly. A newborn is mentally unable to process pain into anything traumatizing. There is almost no issue here.
It’s a barbaric practice based on biblical bullsplat. Time for it to STOP!
The bible does not require it but it is BS people are using the bible as a defense for it I am sure but lord leave the boy dic alone if hes happy with it and not complaining why does it matter to anybody else .. 95% of the males on earth are not cut so hummmm
And the rest of us are glad we are.
No we aren’t.
Gosh, I didnt’ realize that circumcision was such a big issue with activists on each side. Clearly some people are too preoccupied with their weiners and I think I’ve figured out why you’re one of them.
My husband was born at home and never circumcised. He never had any problems. I suppose it is a parental choice at birth but why in the he** would you do it on a 4 year old? Ridiculous.
It’s never a parental choice. It’s a personal choice to be made by the person it effects.
If you are an adult, absolutely. Children have no choice, they must rely on the choices their parents make for them and apparently the choices judges make for them. I say again, it is a horrible thing to do to a 4 year old unless it is deemed BY A DOCTOR to be medically necessary because of some other problem.
Have fun with your erectile dysfunction. I’m restoring, and have already seen the benefits of having what was ripped from me. Just wish I could get those nerve endings back.
Seems to me that you are the one who is attempting to speak for all men who are circumcised. And it seems that you are also the one who first mentioned his own private part.
Actually, i thought being male, mentioning that would provide some credibility women just don’t have on this issue. Those who equate circumsision with arab mutiliation have created a false equivalency. Circumcision is favored in America and really doens’t have much to do with religion. Its cleaner, works okay, and I expect most men get accustomed to their glan no matter how it is.
Horrible experience for a 4 year old? Well that too is a bit of a stretch designed for the horror effect. Yes, better right after birth but oh well. Certainly not like having an elective abortion or being involved in a car accident. All sounds a little emotional to me…and most of the arguments in this thread are silly. It would be interesting to see how many cut men regret it, and how many uncut wish they’d had it done as a baby. Rather than this internet crap.
Obviously it is not in any way comparable to female circumcision. i don’t care one way or another about male circumcision, but I do think doing it to a four-year-old is extreme, especially when the parents are fighting over it and making a big deal out of it. The kid is probably very scared through all the controversy mostly via mom.
Oh Ellie…don’t you have something more important to do? LIke being a better parent without being sexist?
Hahha…ME have something better to do? I am happily a very good grandmother by the way.
And I’m a very good grandfather. Hoping for a couple more from the other offspring.
Who are you to pressure your kids into having kids? You had your kids, and now the choice to reproduce belongs to your kids and their mates without the added pressure of YOU insinuating yourself into that VERY personal decision. Let them make their choice without your bloviated opinion because that is why there are so many unwanted/abused/neglected children-because young people are pressured by society to follow the grand scheme… meet, fall in love, get married, HAVE KIDS. And that doesn’t HAVE to be the case. Not everybody wants children, and society has to start realizing that peer pressure, family pressure and societal expectations CAN be denied. SO back off, Grandpa!
Oh go screw yourself. Don’t lecture me or anyone else. You need to MYOB, witch.
I hope your kids tell YOU to go screw yourself, you self-important, arrogant Scheissekopf. (Witch. Hahahahaha!)
You are a moron. I see him hoping for more grandkids, not pressuring.
And you’re a moron for missing the point. Nobody’s saying that EVERYBODY has to have kids. And if you think that that idiot hasn’t made his ‘hopes’ clear to his kids, then you’re even more of a moron than I originally thought.
I don’t KNOW what he did or didn’t make clear to his kids because I’m not one of his kids. I never heard him say anything about them HAVING to have kids, what I saw was a grandfather wishing for more kids. So what if he told his kids he hopes they have more! He has every right to hope for more. Perfectly acceptable in any family. & that is not “pressuring.” You’re the moron for even saying such a thing!!!
Point: Missed. Again.
I didn’t miss the point at all, you made an asinine assumption based on a man’s wish for more grandchildren. The point: you are a moron. Again.
JiveNJingle.. just ignore this TROLL….
Are you following me all over the internet? That’s f*cking creepy.
And you, failing to see my point, and refusing to admit it, are resorting to name-calling as if that makes you seem a little more superior, more credible, more intelligent. NOT. You keep those blinders on, Honey, and let the rest of us who have a more open mind enlighten those who feel bullied (by people such as yourself and that jerk above) to realize they really DO have a choice as to whether they want to procreate or not. No choice is wrong, except when it’s forced upon someone by peer/family/societal pressure, directly or indirectly. Open your eyes, Mommy-brain, and see that parenting isn’t your only choice. Or is it too late for you to realize you HAD a choice? Step off already, Lady.
WOW you really are an idiot. I never said choosing to not have kids is wrong. If you don’t want kids you shouldn’t have them. But there’s nothing wrong with a grandfather wishing for more grandkids from his own kids.
Excuse me, Mr. Radioman. Women don’t have any credibility on this issue? Speaking strictly for myself, (and I’m quite sure many other women will agree) I prefer a man who has *not* been cut. And having a preference certainly qualifies us to speak on the matter, aside from our feelings about mutilation of a child in general. So just because women don’t actually ‘own’ the body part in question doesn’t mean that precludes us from having an opinion about it one way or the other. And perhaps-as a cut individual-you can speak for yourself only, instead of arrogantly proclaiming yourself the ‘voice’ of all circumcised men. There are plenty of men who regret having been cut, and usually it was done before they had been given the choice. I think your arrogance contributes to the abundance of ‘internet crap’ you speak of.
Using your logic, men should have veto rights about abortions, or do you think motherhood and women’s logic supercedes mens?
Don’t be an ignorant fool. Men already DO (and make their power over us very clear!) have their say in women’s reproductive/sexual health issues. Men create these damn laws that limit a woman’s access to birth control, limit the window that a WOMAN has to seek certain medical procedures WHY??? Please don’t pretend that it isn’t already so! YOU are part of the problem if you think this is okay!
You’re probably one of idiots who seems to think it’s okay that there’s the pregnant 10-year old GIRL who was raped by her stepfather being denied access to an abortion for a pregnancy that might kill her. Yeah, Pro-life—please, don’t get me started.
>>>Speaking strictly for myself, (and I’m quite sure many other women will agree) I prefer a man who has *not* been cut.>>>
Well, then men should be welcome to stick our two cents into a woman’s decision for a breast reduction, on the grounds that we like big boobs.
No, women, have NOTHING to say about whether or not a man chooses to be circumcised.
So, I disagree. There.
Did you choose it? Or did your Mother (who you say had not right to)?
I would say 90% of white males, born in the US are, Also NOW World Health organizations encourage it as a healthier option.
Statistically about half.
‘Healthier option’ really only applies if you live where regular bathing in clean water isn’t an option. Here in the US, there’s really no reason for it.
not unless your son joins the armed forces. and winds up where regularly bathing isn’t an option.
No wonder American men are so angry all the time. Their poor johnsons.
WHO recommends it for adult males in Africa. Period.
Also, you would be wrong about 90% of U.S. males. Current rate is about 53%. It was never above 90%, and that was a brief era. My son is intact, I’m cut, my father is intact. That’s a 79 year span. Plenty of intact men in America - they’re just all over 70 or younger than 20.
Wrong. Paul said many times in the bible that circumcision was not necessary. As I understand it, he did it because Peter was claiming that in order to become a Christian you had to be circumcised, and men were refusing to be converted because of that. Nor was it practiced throughout much of Christian history, and it is still very uncommon in most Christian countries. It’s mainly a Jewish and Muslim practice.
Circumcision has many health benefits and is best when done at infancy…on the 8th day, according to Leviticus. But by the age of 4, it’s turned into a very painful process and should not be forced on a child unless necessary.
In this case, however, the mother agreed to the procedure then backed out. This is being treated more like a breech of contract situation than whether or not it’s good or bad for the child involved. That’s disgraceful on the part of all parties.
Oh yeah, I”ve read Scripture on good health and diet. And killing women who sleep around. Lotta credibility there. Did you know the Bible was written even before doctors bled their patients in hopes of healing them?
Disgusting. That father is horrible, as is the judge. That poor child and mother, I hope they are able to prevent this surgery. This is no longer biblical times people! We have evolved past all of that crap!
How do I contribute to her fund?
Can’t see how this is different from female mutilation.
It is. But without a weiner, you wouldn’t know that.
It is different than many forms of female mutilation.. but it is unnecessary and this kid is already 4! Then it isn’t a simple little procedure that hurts the infant for just a little while.. it is surgery. Absolutely unnecessary and ridiculous for all involved to have to go through such trauma.
It’s different insofar as the male equivalent would be to have his entire glans cut off so that he can’t enjoy sex-which is the reason female mutilation is performed, and, as I understand it, is the effect that it has.
Well isn`t that just a nice sunshine story, court ordered to carry out a completely unnecessary surgery all because back in the day some idiot named Kellogg was obsessed with masturbation, and figured that snipping off the foreskin would prevent little boys from fiddling with their privates. Congratulations Merika, another reason the rest of the world laughs at you on one hand, while on the other we are simply horrified.
Kellogg wanted it done on teen boys without anesthetic so that they would associate pain with their penis. So he didn’t really get what he wanted, either. D:
Don’t forget he advocated carbolic acid on the clitoris for girls.
THIS POOR CHILD WILL BE HORRIBLY TRAUMATIZED
sorry, hit the caps lock by mistake
She’s not being arrested for protecting her son. She’s being arrested for violating a court order-an order to carry out a signed agreement (contract) between the father and the mother. The morality of the situation is irrelevant to the arrest. However people on this forum may feel about circumcision, this is a legal matter of the father enforcing the contract. The judge’s hands are tied. I do agree that the father has exercised bad judgment in waiting so long. If it was to be done, it should have been done before the son left the hospital, which is the normal timeframe. Now, the child will have full memory of the experience that he would not have had if it were done within days of his birth. That aside, if there was no specific timeframe in the contract, the father is not in violation of the contract, and it is legally binding. This is one case where I can’t condemn Florida, and believe me, that is saying something.
What if the signed agreement said that her son was to a tattoo on his forehead?
It’s a medical fact that the boy reacts badly to anesthesia, and is prone to keloid scarring. So circumcision is medically counter-indicated. Why should a signed agreement between his parents trump his health and welfare?
If the mother hadn’t gone into hiding with her son, he would have been subject to extreme danger of physical injury.
HansC, I didn’t see anywhere in the story a mention of the boy’s abreaction to anesthesia (and believe me, that would be important to me as I also abreact), nor any mention of being prone to keloid formation. Can you provide citations?
Jim. The contract was between the mother and the father. Not the son and anyone else. The boy is now at an age, as you said he will remember the entire ordeal, and is able to speak and say weather he is on board with the procedure or not. The mother, instead of honoring an unethical, and should be illegal contract between herself and the boys father, decided to honor the wishes of the boy. Honoring his personal autonomy.
We as a people need to stop acting like barbarians and treating children like toys and possessions. Instead honor and cherish them as individuals. Our society has fallen apart because too many people are allowed to be parents without ever having proven they are mentally, socially, emotionally or psychologically equipped to be such.
We need a license to drive, to practice any professional career that would affect any body else’s life. We should also accept that people need to licensed to be parents. Classes, education and regular check ups on parent. Really it wouldn’t be any harder than a parent/teacher conference.
We would have to create some federal, or state institutions to raise/hold the children; but we could make it part of neo-natal preparation that the parents get educated, registered and certified. I see a civilization that within a couple of generations that would wipe out a huge percentage of the social problems we are plagued with.
And for those that have disgust over the idea of orphanages. Let me tell you, being raised by incompetent parents has left me scared and terrified of people. No matter how much I try to fight it, the damage they wrought upon me keeps me forever in a state of insecurity and distrust. I’d much rather have been raised on the streets, any where else than with those horrible people.
Being “of an age to speak” certainly does not mean the child has the ability to make his own medical decisions. If you asked him, he probably wouldn’t want a shot, either. Or stitches to close up a laceration.
Jim Gott was right. The mother reneged on a contract, and the judge was obligated to order her to uphold the contract, and when she didn’t, she stood in violation of a court order. None of this has anything to do with the reasons for a circumcision, which the parents AGREED to.
Incidentally, there IS, indeed, documentation of increased cervical cancer rates in women whose partners are uncircumcised. Uncircumcised males also have higher rates of HPV infection and penile cancer. So there actually are health reasons FOR circumcision.
If that is the case, Cervical Cancer MUST be rampant in Europe since most men there are not circumcised. One study showing that there is an increase of HPV in women with uncircumcised men does not prove the fact. Cervical Cancer rates in Europe are no higher than in the United States. With your logic, we should start doing Mastectomies at birth, to prevent breast cancer in this country because breast cancer is 300% more common than cervical cancer God (or natural selection) made the body the way it is. We should not be cutting off parts when it is not necessary. Surgery is ALWAYS the LAST choice.
Can people please stop talking about penile cancer. Men have a greater risk of breast cancer, ffs. And the American Cancer Society has said there is absolutely no link between foreskin and penile cancer. The risk factors are the same as pretty much every other cancer: genetics or an unhealthy lifestyle (smoking being near the top).
How many infants have given women HPV?
The courts also used to enforce slavery contracts and contracts for the sale of babies etc. You’re wrong to say the judge’s hands were tied. Contracts are found to be unenforceable every day of the week on public policy grounds. This one clearly should have been.
Contracts entered into for an illegal purpose are null and void, and the illegal purpose in this case is to force a child to endure a procedure which is not only unnecessary, but may endanger his health/life. The judge’s hands were not tied. He’s clipped, the father’s clipped, and neither of them likely have any memory of the incident, therefore don’t see it as invasive or traumatic. This 4 year old child will remember every minute of the horror, especially if he has an adverse reaction on any level as a result. This judge MUST at least consider the implications of such a permanent procedure. Leave the kid alone, I say.
How about the BOY’S right to full bodily integrity?
I agree with this. *Because so much time has passed, the boy’s feelings on the subject should be factored in. If he’s against it, it should be put off. He can *always change his mind later on if he chooses. All in all, I see this as just an a$$hole dad who’s bitter about a breakup and is taking it out on the child.
While I agree that the boy’s feelings should be factored, that requires legal proceedings. If the mother did not (rightfully so) want this procedure to be done, then the correct method is to file an appeal and counter suit to overturn the contract. Bring in medical professionals, a psychologist, etc. Present the evidence, including any potential contraindications to the procedure to the court, and proceed through legal means. Unfortunately, running away and hiding leaves the mom in a very bad position.
Yes, the father is totally in the wrong for wanting to force this on a four year old kid at this point, but so is mom for how it was handled. Granted, it completely understandable that she did what she did, but she was still wrong.
She did appeal. It was denied. That’s why she hid - to protect her child.
And yes, the boy’s feelings should be considered, which is why it’s now in the federal court system. Did you actually read the article?
The only reason time has passed is the boy was kidnapped. Read. P.s. she doesn’t gave sole custody. The one who is bitter is the pos mother.
Wrong. The parenting agreement was signed in 2011 and stated the father was to schedule and pay for the circumcision. He did nothing until 2013 after the mother had learned more about circumcision and became vocally opposed to it. The boy was already three when this “loving” father decided to take his anger out on his ex by mutilating his own flesh and blood. In court, he testified that a doctor told him over the phone that the reason his son was peeing down his leg was because he suffered from phimosis. Phimosis can’t be diagnosed until after puberty because it’s the natural state of a boy. It would be akin to claiming a girl had a defect because she still had her hymen. The only medical doctor who testified at the trial stated there was no medical need for circumcision, and that he wouldn’t do it to his own son. Now keep blaming the mom who was trying to protect her son.
Ok. I GET IT. It’s perfectly fine to kidnap children for years, but a tiny piece of foreskin is worth an article. This is why women get killed. Not for a piece of foreskin. I can’t debate a point when the one’s you debate are working without a clue.
Underaged circumcision should be banned.
the judge who ordered it needs the head of his penis cut off. because, well, just because he’s a douchebag
you are an idiot. please don’t pass on your defective genes
I know this isn’t going to be popular, but let me explain. First of all, I’m as liberal as the next person. That doesn’t mean I agree with every single thing though. Second, I’ve got a degree as a paralegal, so I have some knowledge of what I’m talking about. Third, the court did the right thing, even though it may not have wanted to do so.
Both parents signed an agreement that the boy would be circumcised. This constitutes a contract and thus has the force of law. Baring a clause that allows for either party to opt out at a later time, it’s binding on both parties. That the mother changed her mind later on is legally irrelevant, since she initially agreed to it. Imagine the implications if one partner to a contract were allowed to opt out of the contract at a later date:
What if A contractor on a house wouldn’t be assured of being paid, as after the work is done, the owner of the house could opt out of the contract and refuse to pay. The contractor would have no legal recourse, since deciding here that it would be okay would set a precedent.
What if a bank were to make a loan to a person, and after receiving the loan, the person decided to opt out of the loan so as not to pay it back? The bank would then be out that much money and would be less likely to loan out money in the first place. Since they make a lot of money on loans, it may mean closing the bank, since the bank would have no legal recourse to get their money back.
What if a person went to a restaurant and had a meal, then decided to opt out of paying for it afterwards? How long would the restaurant be in business if the force of law wasn’t behind it? Your receipt is proof of a contract, after all.
This case is fundamentally no different. Two parties enter into a contract, with one later changing their mind. Should they be allowed to opt out of the contract simply because they no longer like the terms of the contract? Without a specific exemption in either the contract or the law, then no, they shouldn’t be allowed to. It opens up a slippery slope, and the courts want to avoid that at all costs. Look at Citizens United as an example of a slippery slope.
Normally, the courts shy away for forcing something to be done and instead order that money be paid as restitution. How do you put a monetary cost on the lifelong loss of a foreskin, though? I don’t imagine this has come up much in American history, and thus there probably isn’t a whole lot of precedent in the entire U.S., much less in Florida alone. And since only U.S. law and Florida law would be binding on a Florida court, this is likely uncharted water. This was likely seen as the only outcome possible in this case. Of course, it can, and probably will, be appealed, so it’ll be interesting to see how it turns out.
I’m a lawyer so I too know whereof I speak. Do the research…contracts are voided all the time on grounds of public policy (as well as many other reasons). It’s not like the Ten Commandments stone tablet. There are many things one cannot contract on…like a slavery contract or a contract to sell a baby (or any human for that matter). Furthermore CPS involvement could put an end to that contract in a New York minute…and should.We’re not talking about a house, a loan or goods, we’re talking about humans. There are elements a contract has to contain to be enforceable, one of them being ‘fair and reasonable’…this is neither. I’d bet money an appeals court would overturn this ridiculous decision. But yeah, as a paralegal it would do you well to learn a lil more about contracts law.
The main problem with the claim that it’s in a contract and therefore enforceable is that that part of the contract involves a third-party, the boy, who did not agree to the contract. And I don’t need to be a lawyer, or even a paralegal, to see that.
Once again, Florida chases Texas for the title of most irretrievably ignorant state.
This is the reversal of the cases of men without vaginas dictating what women can and can’t do. She should have gone with the cutting and left it to her husband to decide. Until she grows a weiner of course and can decide for herself.
This is absurd,,, another case where women have gotten too big for their panties.
Except the boy is the victim here. Your logic is flawed.
I thought the kid was having all kinds of uro-genital problems? Did the author leave that part out on purpose? I’m very anti-circumcision, so don’t take this the wrong way. I’ve read elsewhere that it was for medical reasons this boy NEEDED a circumcision.
The dad claimed a doctor told him the boy had phimosis and that’s why he was peeing down his leg. It was a potty-training issue, not a medical problem (and I’ve heard, but haven’t verified) that that diagnosis was made over the phone. I haven’t checked up on it because it’s an invalid diagnosis to start with. Boys his age typically can not retract their foreskin, so saying he has phimosis is simply stupid, since that’s how it’s supposed to be. The only doctor who testified at the trial said there is no medical need for him to be circumcised.
No expert, as a teen I did have to share a gym clothes locker,5 days a week with an “UN”, the stench was bad, mothers you’re doing your sons a favor by this nip, as a man I thank my Mom for this cut. Life as a human animal is tough enough without smelling like an animal everyday of your life.
?? The issue wasn’t circumcision with that young man, it was improper hygiene. I’ve been with men who were not cut and there was no difference in “stench”.
This is absolutely rediculous. As a mother, I would do anything to protect my sons, so I applaud Heather in doing so. Circumsicion is an unnecessary cosmetic surgery. This poor little man, has nothing medically wrong with him, so why cut him? The judge and the father are both stupid… And obviously are both circumsised. I would LOVE to see the tables turned and have them do an unnecessary medical procedure by cutting their balls off. But nooooo, that’s “way” different. Since when was it a parents right to have cosmetic altercations done to their children? A judge would never stand on my side if I decided to have plastic surgery done to my children, because I wanted it done.. Omg this world is full of idiots!
Let the father decide for his boy. Circumcision is men’s business. Women concern yourselves with the girls earings.
Nope
How about let the boy decide since it’s his penis? Novel thought, huh?
Another arrogant chauvinist. How about women ask a man to drop his draws to see if he’s circ’ed or not before she decides to invest time and energy in a relationship with him? You? Don’t bother. Besides your ugly attitude, I’m pretty sure you’re clipped, so there’s the door, show yourself out.
The point here is that THE COURTS SHOULD HAVE NO RIGHT to ORDER anyone to do something with their body that they don’t want to do… NO MATTER WHAT A PIECE OF PAPER FROM YESTERDAY SAYS!!!!
Well comparing female circumcision to male would mean you would have to remove the entire head of the penis. Female circs are done to ensure women receive no pleasure from the act and remove the clitoris some sew the vaginal open shut and some further mutilate by remove the outer and inner lips. I believe there is a vast difference.
Thanks for explaining the difference. Only the foreskin is removed from the penis, not the whole tip. As Jews, we had the procedure done on our three sons. It is called a brit milah (the “covenant of circumcision”) and is performed on the eighth day of the infant’s life by a certified Mohel.
Eeew.
I attended one of those ceremonies for the son of a colleague of mine. Even the child’s mom went upstairs…couldn’t watch, Couldn’t listen.
Far from all female circ’s includes the removal of the clitoris.
That aside, I oppose any genital mutilation done to any child, boy or girl…
There are medical reasons that circs are preformed It is much easier on a child than a teen or adult.
how many are those medical nececceties? I know of exactly 0 men that have had to have a circ. And I live in a country where virtually no children are circ’ed.
I worked in urology there are medical and cultural reasons for corcs. In the USA the Academy of Pediatrics neither condemns or recommends them. I think that the reason the father has for wanting the circ is lacking in this article and therefore it is hard to make a judgement. My guess is this is a child being used in a tug of war and since the mother at one time agreed to the procedure and is now hiding out, I have a hard time sympathizing with her.
care to try to sympathize with the child?
Less than 50% of male infants are circed in many parts of the US, you’ll see the light eventually.
Worldwide, less than 1% of all infants are circumcised.
Did you not get it? I work in urology. A baby , the age most are circumcised, cry for a couple minute. Older children are sedated and given pain meds are are usually back to normal withing a day. I have NO clue why they want to do a circ on a kiddo this age but my gues is frequent UTIs or phimosis . In general if the docs I work with are doing a circ on an older kid there IS a medical reason. There is absolutely no way to know what is going on from this article other than the mother is reneging on an agreement and hiding out illegally. It makes me believe there is a heck of a lot more going one we don’t know.
If you work in urology, why would you think phimosis would be a proper diagnosis in a boy his age? If the doctor you work for (I’m assuming you aren’t the doctor because you didn’t say, “I’m a urologist”) is diagnosing small boys with phimosis and circumcising them, he needs to have his license revoked.
And since you’re clueless about the case, I’ve been following it for a year and a half: Parenting agreement was put in effect in 2011. The father was put in charge of scheduling the circumcision and paying for it. He didn’t bother. In the meantime, the mother learned more about circumcision and became a vocal activist against it. It was only then, in 2013, when the boy was already 3, did the father decide now was the time to do it, and took her to court when she refused to sign the consent form. At the trial the father claimed a doctor told him over the phone the boy had phimosis (there’s that bullshit diagnosis again), and that’s why he was peeing down his leg. Yes, the father wants his son cut because he had a potty-training incident. Or is it because he knows it would crush mom? I lean toward the latter. The only medical doctor to testify at the first trial was a urologist who had actually examined the boy and he said there was no medical indication for circumcision, and said that he would not do it if it was his own son.
Since you work in urology, you are of course well aware of that female babies have a 400% higher prevalence of UTI’s? Proposing we’ll start circ’ing baby girls? The doc that examined the boy said no Phismosis, and that he refused to circ the boy. You can’t tell if a boy has phismosis until they are in their teens, because the foreskin is attached to the glasn of the penis, in much the same was a nail is attached to your finger.
There is no legitimate indication for “routine” circumcision. Medical indications occur in 1-3% of boys.
Really, and your medical degree is from where? And you are a urologist I take it?
Emory University. Not a urologist, a Nurse Practitioner. Do you have a hard time sympathizing with a little boy who has stated he does not want to have the foreskin on his penis cut off? Have you ever heard the expression “Primum, non nocere,”? That means “First, do no harm”. I question the ethics of performing surgery without legitimate medical indication.
Much less than that. Lifetime risk is somewhere around 1 in 15-20,000. A boy has a greater risk of dying from it than ever needing it.
The vast majority of teens and adults will never want or need their foreskins removed, so that argument is moot.
And again your medical degree is from where? and you are a practicing urologist??? No, so how long have you worked in urology? Do you know if there is a cultural reason why the parents agreed to the circ and you know why the mother is using here child to spite the father?
Are you a urologist? No? Your point?
I can read. When every medical board in the world says there is no reason to routinely circumcise infants, I tend to believe them. I have also been researching circumcision for at least 15 years. I know a thing or two about it. You obviously don’t know anything about it.
Pro-circ lobby is absolutely disgusting. I don’t care if your reasons are cultural, religious or “health”, this is a revolting practice and a huge abuse of human rights.
It BARBARIC to FORCE a four year old child to be circumcised if there is no medical need!
The judge should never have ruled in favor of having the kid circumcised - it is not up to him!
Especially since the only doctor who testified said it wasn’t necessary and he wouldn’t do it on his son at this age.
She is clearly in the wrong, the practice is now encouraged by world health organizations, but any Hospital will tell you that the father is the one to make the call. She is clearly doing this to get back at the dad.
the only non-jewish/non-muslim country to routinely mutilate baby boys is the US…
Actually, South Korea, for some unknown reason.
the very existence of information about the history of Korean circumcision, its contrary nature relative to a longstanding tradition, its introduction by the US military after 1945, has been extremely influential on the decision-making process regarding circumcision
The father (he’s no “dad”) was supposed to schedule and pay for it. He did nothing about it until the boy was three and the mom had become vocal about her opposition to circumcision. He’s the one doing it to hurt her.
And the only health organizations in the world recommending it are the frauds at the AAP and CDC.
I am not against circumcision of babies. It is a part of a religious practice, and it does not hinder a person’s sexual pleasure as an adult. However, this is no longer a baby, this is a toddler who is now old enough that he will likely remember the procedure and recovery. That makes this very different.
the only religions supporting circ is judaism and islam.
Galatians 5:1-6
4.5 times greater risk of erectile dysfunction. You lose.
cite your source and explain how removing a small bit of skin causes a hormone imbalance or deep tissue nerve damage. or is this one of those, poor guys are so insecure they can’t get it up thing?
I was under the impression that this wasn’t a game.
The Father needs to assraped with a meathook.
You spelled “Mother” wrong
Some meathook for you too.
The AAP (American Academy Pediatrics) and the CDC encourage circumcision of even adult men. The Health benefits are “WORTH IT.” Also In the US I would say say at least 80% of white males are circumcised. (99 percent at my HS) The Hospitals stance is to defer to “the father.” I personally had this conversation. And yes there is some ridicule if one is not. So the minority is vocal, it is a very safe and Doctor recommended practice. The mother is simply punishing her EX. He is clearly standing on solid ground.
What are the health benefits?
Apparently there are none.
Of course there isn’t. if there were, more countries would do this barbaric ritual.
Can you tell me again why it’s okay to circ a boy?
I have posted the health benefits, If only news is holding up my medical information for some reason
No. you’ve repeated the same bull that’s been claimed for a century. A,azing how we made it millions of years just fine before this stupid procedure became common. And even more amazing how Europe hasn’t died from chronic foreskin disease.
No. you’ve repeated the same bull that’s been claimed for a century. Amazing how we made it millions of years just fine before this stupid procedure became common. And even more amazing how Europe hasn’t died from chronic foreskin disease.
now 9 minutes on straight from the textbook info, strange? They don’t want to approve Doctors advice?
well, I can help you a bit, this is what the AAP says; “Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.”
I can help you more AAP says” the rewards outweigh the risks…They might not recommend but they encourage it, also The CDC is all for it, even in adults. But my point is Hospitals leave it up to “the dad.” That is what they recommend. Which is fine
don’t you think it’s pretty amazing that no other country (aside from Israel) agrees with the practice of mutilating male infants?
If a Circ is so beneficial, why are there more AIDS cases per 100,000 in the US than any other western country? Why are there more STD’s in the US than in any other western country? Why is there a higher rate of penile cancer in the US than in any other western country? Why is there a higher prevalence of erectile dysfunction in the US than any other western country? Why does US men have a much lower life expectancy than most western countries?
One would think that since it’s (according to you) beneficial to have a circ, the US should be at the bottom and not the top?
I also have to ask you, since 250,000 women gets breast cancer every year, would you support a mastectomy on infant girls? That has to be a great health benefit, no?
No, Your “no other country thing is wrong also”. (but minor) You need not worry about it, It is not “my job” to answer every little thing your brain cooks up. Circumcision is healthier, cleaner and not a issue. It is also Doctor recommended. But you don’t seem to understand, like father like son. Knowing what I know about the 2, I would always recommend it. You do understand the kids that are not, are looked to as strange. Your argument is with the doctors, I believe them.
but it is not doctor recomended.
You claim there’s health benefits, I prove there is none, you say I have an issue, and that you’re right when I prove you wrong, way to go 😉
Yeah you proved the whole medical community wrong, the CDC Highly Recommends it for even adults, it in no way affects the penis but for the better, which people who know nothing claim. Glad you learned it is a healthy safe practice.
You’re delusional.
No, you see the sources, I think you might just be really dumb
Yes, I’ve read the AAP’s moronic statement, which was called out for its cultural bias by more than 30 doctors from around the world. They are the ONLY medical organization in the world who remotely suggests newborn circumcision is beneficial. Perhaps you missed this part of their statement which shows their true motive: “Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine
circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are
sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and
to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns”
Yes, that’s right - they want the states who stopped Medicaid funding of circumcision to start it again.
Their alleged benefits (where they incorrectly use “prevention” instead of “reduced risk”) are:
1) a reduced risk of UTIs during the first year - uncircumcised boys still have about 1/10th the chance of girls of having a UTI. We give them antibiotics, we don’t chop parts off. also, there are numerous studies out there showing no difference or the opposite.
2) reduced risk of penile cancer - men have a greater risk of breast cancer. Also, in intact men, it generally occurs on the foreskin, leading to an actual medical reason for circumcision. On circumcised men, it generally forms on the scar line, leading to a medical reason for penile amputation. Of course, this is irrelevant since the American Cancer Society has stated there is no evidence at all that foreskin has any role.
3) reduced risk of STIs, including HIV - one need only look at the rates by country. The U.S. leads in infection rates in every single one over countries where circumcision is rarely heard of. And the HIV thing - that 60% reduction they like to talk about? We’ll pretend the studies weren’t massive flawed and run by people with a pro-cutting bias and get right to the fact that that only applies to female-to-male transmission. There is no evidence of any difference in any other situation. Now let’s point out that is a RELATIVE risk reduction, not absolute. The truth is female-to-male transmission is one of the worst vectors for HIV infection, with a risk of 0.4%, so your actual reduced rate is 0.16%. When condoms give essentially 100% protection when used properly, and you still need to use them when circumcised, do you really think that .24% drop will make a difference?
The CDC’s position was based almost entirely on the HIV reduction. They should be ashamed of themselves.
I read your background, your the non circumcision guy…it’s your thing. Fine, you can have a opinion but there is plenty to support those that don’t share it…
CDC Encourages Circumcision, Even for Adult Men
Written by Cameron Scott
| Published on December 3, 2014
In recent years, a
cultural movement against circumcision has taken root in the United
States, but now doctors and public health advocates are speaking out in
support of the procedure.
For the first time, the federal Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) has weighed in on the hot-button issue of circumcision, or removal of the foreskin.
Yesterday, the agency published draft guidelines
that say doctors should educate boys and men who were not circumcised as
newborns, as well as parents of newborn boys, about the health benefits of circumcision.
The guidelines point to research, much of it done in
sub-Saharan Africa, showing that circumcision reduces
the transmission of STDs, including HIV and the human papillomavirus, which can
cause cancer. The foreskin creates
an ideal environment for bacterial and viral infections to thrive.
“Given the urgency of the HIV epidemic in the United States,
CDC believes it is essential to maximize the impact of all available prevention
options and is working to provide clinicians the best possible information on
the full range of proven approaches. Male circumcision is one strategy that may
help reduce the continued spread of HIV in the U.S.,” the agency said in an official
statement.
Learn More About Circumcision »
Circumcision rates are lower in African-American and
Hispanic communities, according to the CDC. These communities also have higher
rates of HIV than the American population overall. About 1.2 million
American adults have HIV.
American Doctors Say Yes to Circumcision
The CDC’s move contributes to a shift in the American
scientific community toward stronger support for circumcision. Circumcision
rates fell
10 percent in the United States from 1979 to 2010, reaching their lowest point
of 55 percent in 2007.
Male circumcision is one strategy that may help reduce the continued spread of HIV in the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) revised
its circumcision guidelines
to offer stronger support for the practice than it had in the past. Circumcision
rates seem to have ticked
upward since the AAP changed its stance.
Both the CDC and AAP guidelines suggest doctors educate
parents and adult men on the health benefits of circumcision, but leave the
final decision up to them.
The CDC will be accepting public
comments on the proposed guidelines until mid-January.
Circumcision and the ‘Culture Wars’
The revised government rules come at a time when
anti-circumcision activists have grown more vocal. Critics of circumcision say
the American scientific community overlooks drawbacks of the procedure,
performed with local anesthetic and a clamp, including pain and reduced sexual
pleasure. They question the logic of research that shows circumcision slows HIV
transmission.
HIV Facts: What You Need to Know »
“The whole premise is totally flawed. HIV is not caused by
foreskin,” said Dr. Adrienne Carmack, a urologist in Austin, Texas, who is a
medical adviser for Intact America, an anti-circumcision group. “The problem is
there’s too much fear because in our culture the norm has been to circumcise
and people don’t understand healthy male genitals in this culture if they
haven’t experienced them.”
A group of high-profile European doctors levied
a similar critique against the AAP’s 2012 recommendations.
Evidence that circumcision protects against sexually
transmitted diseases is “questionable, weak, and likely to have
little public health relevance in a Western context,” the doctors wrote,
pointing out that in Western countries where circumcision is less common, HIV
rates are no higher than they are in the United States.
Moreover, STD transmission rates do not
“represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide
for themselves,” the European doctors wrote. However, circumcision on post-pubescent
men is a much more serious procedure with greater risk of complications, such
as bleeding and loss of sensation.
As a sign of just how toxic the
circumcision debate has become, the AAP’s response
accused the European doctors of having their own “cultural biases” against the
procedure.
The CDC, the AAP, and the American Congress of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists did not make anyone available for interview.
Get the Facts on Penile Cancer »
“much of it done insub-Saharan Africa,” so if we move there, I would consider it.
I swear I replied to this. Not going to do it all again, just point out the last part of that post agrees with me and points out all the flaws with the AAP and CDC statements
By your logic, having a foreskin prevents all that
28 minutes to approve Doctors advice??
If only news is withholding doctor advice? They should man up…they don’t care to hear medical opinions,
it makes their story look stupid.
Ever seen an uncircumcised penis? It looks like a ugly sea monster from the depths. Adult men I have known have been so embarrassed about being uncircumcised, that in their early 20s, they went and had it done. If I were a woman and a guy pulled “that” out of his pants, I would run away as fast as possible. Fricking scary! Knowing how some men have poor hygiene, who knows what would be living under that skin! Think about that one for a second!
Have one, and my American girlfriend will never go back to a circ’ed penis.
Ever think the reason they felt so ashamed is because of ignorant people like you crying that it looks like an ugly sea monster? And once it’s erect, I bet you wouldn’t be able to tell who was cut and who wasn’t.
And yes, guys are so horrible about hygiene. We all know not one guy ever touches his penis in the shower…
Robert………my personal opinion. This is America…you like your sea cucumber……well, good for you. I personally find the look disgusting. I had two different friends who were uncircumcised in college and they found their dicks disgusting looking too. They went in and had the surgery. They would have much rather had it done when they were babies. Children don’t even remember the pain. I can assure you it was much more difficult for them as young men to go through the procedure. I am sure the reaction they got from women when they pulled it out added to their desire to have it done.
Have you ever seen an erect intact penis? Are you sure?
Personal opinion about what a sexual organ looks like does not give you the right to make thatdecision for someone else.
BTW, I’m circumcised - yet another in the long list of American men who had no choice in whether they got to keep their complete genitalia.
I find it interesting that this same person posting this, that it is wrong to circumcise a child against their will is a strong proponent of vaccinating a child against their will. There are risks with both procedures. Funny where people draw lines… I’ll bet if the mother was against vaccines and the father was pro vaccines this would have an entirely different slant.
Vaccines have proven scientific benefits. Circumcision does not.
Since when is circumcision mandatory?
Let’s let the women on here have a vote. Which do you prefer?
That’s been done. 85% preferred intact.
Intact. No question about it.
I am surprised no one has mentioned the Harvard Medical study that asserts lower rate of STDs among circumsized men vs. uncircumcised. If both parents say yes or no, then fine but if either dissent I say leave the kid uncut and let him decide upon reaching the age of responsibility.
Yet the US is world leading in STD’s per capita…
actually I was surprised to find there is good medical reason for circumcision. A drastic reduction in the risk for aids, and reduced risk of infection when one lives in unsanitary conditions (such as front lines of battle)
drastic reduction? Why are there more HIV positive Americans per 100.000 than in any other country?
No worse than cutting teeth, actually.
Read it, and well,
1. if you can’t be arsed to pull back when you shower, you probably don’t shower very often anyway.
2. UTI’s are 4 times more common in baby girls so I don’t see the issue, it’s easily treated with antibiotics for boys as well.
3. This is patently untrue, the US has among the highest levels of STD’s in the western world.
4. Penile Dysfunction (impotence) is far more common in the US than in any other western country.
5. Penile Cancer - research claiming a relationship between circumcision and penile cancer is inconclusive. Penile cancer is an extremely rare condition, effecting one in 200,000 men in the United States. Penile cancer rates in countries which do not practice circumcision are lower than those found in the United States.
It is a brutal thing to do with no benefit. It cuts out a good percentage of your sensory endings.
If nature did not need it - then it would not be there.
I’m willing to bet your friend was retracting the boy’s foreskin to clean like her ignorant doctor told her. That’s the #1 reason for boys “needing” circumcision in the U.S. Countries that don’t circumcise do not have this epidemic of UTIs and other infetions and phimosis that the U.S. do because they actually understand that you don’t retract a boy to clean him.
Was that boy prematurely retracted? My son is almost 6 and his penis hasn’t rotted off or caused him repeated infections. My father is 85 and his hasn’t killed him. What, exactly, is your infatuation with cutting parts off of baby penises?
No, no, no, YOUUUUURRRRRR an idiot!!
You must be one of those scumbags who is demanding that the 10 year old girl who was raped by her father be forced to endure a pregnancy that might kill her. Way to go, Richard Cranius. Now sit down and shut up, ya jerk.
Me all my sons and grandson will be circumcised. We are descendants of Hebrews and Jews , It a thousand year old tradition, with scientifically proven health beneficial. My family will not reinvent the wheel.
Taking a stand against child mutilation is the only rational course. So, obviously, Florida makes a deal out of it. Way to go, bastards.