Dad appeals teen son's circumcision to U.S. Supreme Court

[depakid]

Source: The Oregonian

A divorced father who wants to circumcise his 13-year-old son against the wishes of the boy's mother is trying to take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. James Boldt, who converted to Judaism, argues that preventing him from circumcising his son violates his constitutional right to practice his religion.

Earlier this year, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the trial judge should determine what the boy wants.

Boldt's ex-wife, Lia, a member of the Russian Orthodox Church, says her son doesn't want the procedure but is afraid to tell his father.

The father started studying Judaism in 1999 and later converted. He said he gradually introduced the boy to Judaism. By 2004, the child wanted to convert, which meant getting circumcised.


Read more: http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/05/dad_appeals_teen_sons_circumci.html

---

Sounds like the father might not like the potential outcome at trail and would prefer to take his chances with Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas.

[Ian David]

1. If he'd wait until his kid turned 18 in 5 years, it would be a moot point. n/t

[Taverner]

2. No zeal like that of the convert

[Xipe Totec]

6. I don't roll on Shabbos! nt

[Donnachaidh]

13. DUDE!

I love the Lebowski reference :rofl:

[stanwyck]

65. Is this your homework, Larry?

I could go on all night.

[Parche]

3. I Think It Should Be Up To The Kid

'Uncut' is not good looking
So I would have it done if I were him
:hi:

[BanzaiBonnie]

22. I much prefer uncut

But I'm a gardener and don't like sheared hedges and topiary and such. It's not natural. Personal preference. I think it looks better.

I think at thirteen a young man should be able to decide for himself. None of my grandsons are circumcised, but that was a decision made by their parents when they were born.

[krabigirl]

75. Hmmm, most of the world's men are "uncut".

[coriolis]

4. 13 is plenty old enough to decide for himself. The others should butt the fuck out

and honor the kid's wishes.

[depakid]

11. The case began winding its way through the courts when he was 9

and under Oregon statutes by age 14, minors have the right to independent informed consent regarding birth control and for all medical procedures at age 15.

I haven't read the Oregon Supreme Court decision, but seems to me that practically, they got to the right result: by the time the new trial and appeals are done, the kid will be 15 and can legally make his own decision.

[coriolis]

14. I'd have let him decide at 9. I mean go along with whatever he wanted then.

...

[cstanleytech]

15. Would you have let him smoke and drink liquor as well? nt

[Warpy]

20. Apples and oranges

This is not a life saving surgery. It is not absolutely vital to the kid's well being. This is his father's religious hangup.

Children are not the absolute property of their parents. I hope the USSC rules that way in this case.

[Regret My New Name]

44. Oh come on, you don't see the difference between those?

[Occulus]

46. How about chopping off his earlobes?

Those aren't necessary; we pierce them all the time.

Er.... wait......

:D

Seriously. He's 13 now. He was 9 then.

He should be making the decision. Has anyone bothered to ask him what he wants?

[cstanleytech]

62. Look

I am more than willing though to let the court appoint someone to assess the kids maturity and then render a verdict on if the kid can make the decision but I would not say outright that its ok for him to do it because he is 13 and that a 13 year old "should be making the decision.".

[Honeycombe8]

51. If all three don't agree (both parents and child), then wait til he's adult, I say.

You can ALWAYS get it done later, when you're an adult. But you CAN'T get it undone.

No, minors cannot make permanent body surgery decisions for themselves w/o parents' consent, but I don't think the parents should, either, unless the child agrees (assuming the child is at least 10 or so).

[merwin]

57. I believe the father is the one with custody, not the mother.

Therefore, the mother doesn't have the right to be involved in this decision. My gut tells me that this is more a fight between the parents than anything else. I doubt either of the parents is thinking about what the kid wants.

[Honeycombe8]

66. She's still a parent, custody or not. You don't lose parental rights when you don't have custody.

It would be best if all three agree. If not, then wait until he's an adult and can make the decision for himself, since circumcision cannot be undone.

[merwin]

68. Actually, you DO lose parental rights when you don't have custody.

That's what custody is. If both parents have rights, it's called joint custody, which doesn't seem to be the case here.

[Crunchy Frog]

72. Not true. Parental rights and custody are two different things.

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/books/lbb/x652.htm

[Honeycombe8]

86. No, you don't. In order to lose parental rights, the state must issue a paper...

that says "You lose all parental rights" to so-and-so. And then lays out some of those rights you no longer have.

You can no longer authorize surgeries, have any say-so in the child's upbringing, contact the child in any way, be obligated for any liabilities the child incurs (if he damages property or such), enter the child in school, or be a parent in any way.

Losing parental rights is what happens when someone gives a child up for adoption, for example. They cease being a parent at all. They are in the same position as, say, you or I would be with that child. An unrelated adult with no say-so in someone else's child's upbringing.

[depakid]

99. Under Oregon law, the noncustodial parent does lose the right to make medical decisions

That's what the lower courts have ruled- and its clear from the relevant statute

This little snippet from a legal blog might help to clear it up:

The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that the custodial parent has the authority to make elective medical decisions for his or her child. Father asserts that mother’s rights regarding medical care are limited by ORS 107.154, and that his medical decision on behalf of M cannot be the basis for a change of custody.

Outside medical and religious groups took interest in the case, and Mother was supported by amicus curiae briefs (briefs filed by a “friend of the court,” someone not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist the court in deciding a matter before it) from Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC).

Father was supported by amicus curiae briefs from the American Jewish Congress, American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, and Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. Father and his supporters argued father has a constitutionally protected First Amendment right to circumcise his son, as it is a fundamental and sacred part of the Jewish religions tradition.

The Supreme Court declined to base its decision on the medical risks or benefits of circumcision. The Supreme Court held that circumcision is a decision is commonly and historically made by parents, and that the decision to circumcise a male child falls within a custodial parent’s authority, despite medical or religions objections by the non-custodial parent.

Had mother only asserted an objection to circumcision as the basis for her motions, her case would have been dismissed. However, mother asserted that M objects to the circumcision. M is now 12. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court to take testimony regarding M’s preference, because father’s circumcising M against his will could affect the relationship between M and father, and thus could have a pronounced effect on father’s capability to properly care for M.

If M consents to the procedure, mother’s motion to change custody should be denied. If mother is correct that M objects, the trial court could consider changing custody, the trial court must determine if M’s opposition will affect father’s ability to properly care for M. If the answer is yes, the court can address modification of the existing custody arrangement, or whether conditions should be imposed on father’s custody of M.

More: http://oregondivorceblog.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/new-case-law-circumcision-as-the-basis-for-custody-modification/

[Honeycombe8]

102. I see. That would be different. But I wouldn't consider circumcision a strictly medical decision..

it's religious, too.

In any case, legal or not...it would be best if all three could agree, but if not, just wait until the child is older, since it cannot be undone, but can always be done later. No harm done to wait.

[depakid]

103. I too am disturbed about the religious aspects of the case

as religion is used to justify many medical decisions, such as refusing to vaccinate one's children, that are far more dangerous than this.

Fortunately, the chance of the US Supreme Court granting cert are virtually nil, as the case will be close to being moot by the time they'd render their decision(s). In the unlikely event that the court did take the case, I suspect a least 4 justices would side with the father and the religious groups that filed amicus briefs.

[GodlessBiker]

5. If we can't smoke peyote as part of a religion, why can we cut off a piece of another person's body?

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

8. It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World. nt

[GodlessBiker]

9. Sure seems that way.

[Indenturedebtor]

19. If the kid wants it then the kid wants it

And some people can smoke peyote and drink hallucinogenic tea. As they should be able to. I don't miss my foreskin heh.

[Crunchy Frog]

21. It doesn't sound like the kid wants it.

The ruling of the court was that his wishes should be determined and presumably followed. Anyway, I don't see a problem in having him wait until he's the legal age of consent.

[Indenturedebtor]

28. If he doesn't want it most synogogues won't let him get it

Judaism is very much a "decide for yourself" kinda thing for the most part. Especially when it comes to Bar Mitzvah. That's the point of the ENTIRE Bar Mitzvah. You get to choose whether you want to be a Jew or not.

But yeah the courts should tell the father that he doesn't have a pony in the race... much as children of those crazy christians who refuse medical care should be imprisoned.

[davidinalameda]

48. the father has custody

he has a clydesdale in this race

and if the kid wants to convert, knowing what is expected of him, then the point should be moot

the mom needs to butt out

[ikojo]

83. No, the pont of the bar mitzvah is not that one chooses

whether or not to be Jewish. The point of the bar mitzvah is that it is the first time a Jewish kid is counted in the quorum necessary for Jewish services (ten Jewish adults-or people of post bar mitzvah age-in Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist Judaism and ten Jewish men in Orthodox Judaism). At one's bar mitzvah it is also the first time that one is called up publicly to read from the Torah. One becomes bar mitzvah whether one takes part in the ceremony or not.

After the age of bar or bat mitzvah the kid is responsible to taking on the responsibility of observing the tenets of the Jewish faith, such as fasting on fast days and the rules associated with the Sabbath (shabbos).

[GodlessBiker]

29. If the kid wants it, then he is exercising his *own* religious beliefs.

[timtom]

25. Thank you!

I agree!

[frylock]

34. his name is mescalito

[happyslug]

81. Read the Opinion (post #63) the Father has the right ot make this decision

The father has Custody of the Child, as the Custodial parent he can make that decision for his child under Oregon Law (that was the holding of the Oregon Supreme Court). The Mother objects to the circumcision, but that is NOT why the court remanded it to the trial Judge. The case was remanded to the trial Judge to determine, given that the Child is now 12, if the Child truly agrees to the circumcision. At age 12 the child has the right to state why or why not he wants the procedure done. the custodian parent, his father, still has final say, but the Trial court can over rule the Father's decision if based on what the child says, the trial judge does NOT think this is in the Child's best interests.

[lligrd]

7. At 13 It Should Be The Kids Decision nt

[havocmom]

10. Isn't the Supreme Court too busy to be dickin' around?

[LawSchoolLiberal]

12. LOL! n/t

[Indenturedebtor]

17. Lol - In Judaism 13 is the age of adulthood

Religious adulthoot anyways. If the kid wants to have a Jewish coming of age then let him :shrug:

Circumcision exposes you to less disease anyways :shrug: What's the big deal?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

92. hell no. not only are most of them pricks,

this allows them to rule conservatively AND in support of some religion.
the perfect issue for the Supremes.

[Jefferson23]

16. This tops it for me..circumcised via the SCOTUS..yuck

[izquierdista]

18. If he just wanted to touch

Well, that would be child molestation and they would lock him up for 10 years. Amazing how a knife can cut 10 years off a prison sentence.

[ann_american2004]

23. Ummmm...ouch

But can't be worst than a HSG. jk. Still they really should find out if the kid truly wants the procedure or not. It might be a power play at the child's expense. He's caught in the middle.

[IsItJustMe]

24. Leave the boys dick alone. Damn these idiots.

[Megahurtz]

36. The Best Post Yet!

Fucking Religious Freaks that started this heinous procedure! :argh:

[asteroid2003QQ47]

50. It is only the Naked Ape that...

ritualistically practices genitalia mutilation.

[merwin]

69. Love that argument. It's only us that have sex for pleasure and not simply procreation.

Does that make it bad also?

[daleo]

71. Bonobo chimps

Have sex for social reasons, is my understanding.

[Crunchy Frog]

73. Why don't you look up bonobos on the internets.

[merwin]

74. horny monkrys!

ok, so it's us and an endangered chimp species. my argument still stands.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

85. IF your "Argument" (never heard of one called that before)...

still "stands," I'm betting it stands less tall than it was meant to?

You seem entrenched in anthropocentrism. If, as it seems, you are defending
"sex for pleasure," by, in part, quickly attaching a 'good or bad' label,' how do you reconcile penile/vaginal mutilation that either partially or totally eliminates that pleasure? Good? Bad?

Your Bonobo research complete, move on to study the biology of the penis-

Specialized Nerve Receptors in the Foreskin

by Paul M. Fleiss, M.D., Frederick M. Hodges
(Page 5 of 5)

The innervation of the foreskin is impressive. Genitally intact males know from personal experience that the foreskin is one of the most sensitive parts of the body. Consequently, for over a century, some of the most respected names in medical science have turned their attention to this part of the body. Anatomists have transformed this inner knowledge into careful scientific observations about the complex innervation of the foreskin. As the most richly innervated part of the penis, the foreskin has the largest number of nerve receptors, as well as the greatest variety of nerve receptors. These specialized nerve endings include Meissner's corpuscles, free nerve endings, end bulbs of Krause, corpuscles of Ruffini, Pacinian corpuscles, genital end bulbs, genital bodies, Merkel's disks, Golgi-Mazzoni corpuscles, and Vater-Pacinian corpuscles. These remarkable organs provide the foreskin with an amazing ability to detect the slightest sensations of touch, motion, temperature, and pressure. We are still unaware of all the facts about these fascinating structures. Future research may discover even more nerve receptors in the foreskin and help clarify what useful purposes they serve.
http://www.enotalone.com/article/3513.html
==========================================================
"The foreskin has more blood cells and nerve endings than almost any other skin on the body which makes it the most erogenous zone of the male body. If it were unfolded and spread out, the average foreskin would cover an area of 15 square inches or 100 square centimetres, which is about the amount of skin lost to circumcision."
http://www.acroposthion.com/acro2_002.htm
==========================================================
"Erogenous tissue. the foreskin is heavily innervated even at birth and before.5 21 The foreskin is a specific erogenous zone6 with nerve endings near the surface of the ridged band arranged in rete ridges.29 The foreskin is noted for its sensory pleasure.12 36 51 Circumcision, therefore, diminishes sexual sensation.6 9 10 11 12 18 28 31 38 57 59 62 63 64

Impotence and sexual dysfunction. The nerves in the foreskin apparently provide an impulse to aid erection. Circumcision has long been associated with an increased incidence of impotence."
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/
==========================================================
"The foreskin is filled with nerve endings called stretch receptors. These nerve endings fire when they are stretched, rolled, or massaged. The only purpose of these nerve endings is to make sex more enjoyable. The stretch receptors are unlike the nerve endings in the head of the penis which are very sensitive to friction but can be so sensitive that the sensation can be irritating or painful. The nerve endings in the head of the penis tend to trigger orgasm much more than the nerve endings in the foreskin."
http://net.indra.com/~shredder/intact/anatomy/
==========================================================
#24. Leave the boys dick alone. Damn these idiots.
--IsItJustMe

I'm with IIJM! You?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

26. It hurts

I know a man who had to be circumcised when he was in his forties due to a condition known as balanitis, and it hurt. It hurt a lot, and he was laid up, in pain, for a few days.

This kid ought to decide for himself. If he's afraid to tell his father, that's a good enough reason not to do it, since that's not a healthy relationship.

Converts are such a drag.

[customerserviceguy]

35. Ditto

I had it done when I was eighteen (medical reasons, but not balanitis), and it hurt like a bitch. I had general anesthesia during the procedure, but for weeks, it was quite painful, and sex hurt after orgasm for years after that (to be fair, I hadn't had any before that time, so no comparison data.)

Pig-headed adults imposing religion on their kids, no matter how much physical and psychological damage it causes, is just fucking sick. It's a good thing this case is in Oregon, if it were in a red state, the father might just win.

[happyslug]

80. Read the Opinion (post #63) the Father did win

The only issue is did the child actually agree? That is what the Court remanded the case to the trial Judge to decide. Other than that fact, the Father, having custody of the child, had the right to decide if the child should be circumcised or not.

[lolly]

105. Someone's in the kitchen with Dinah . . .

Biblical story of Dinah--her father convinced her suitor, a prince, to get circumcised and have all the men in his kingdom circumcised. While they were recovering and incapacitated from the surgery, her father's army invaded and slaughtered everybody.

So, yeah, it's not as easy for older boys/men as it is for little babies.

[madmom]

27. How is not cutting up his son infringing on dear ole dad's religious

freedom?

[GodlessBiker]

30. Exactly. It's like saying I'm exercising my religious freedom by marrying off my 14 y-o child.

[Ilsa]

42. Why bother marrying her off? Just sell her like they did in the Old Testament. nt

[David__77]

31. This should not be allowed.

He's THIRTEEN! I don't favor banning the procedure at this time, but I do think it should be phased out, and I do not think it is a "right" to have procedure done to one's sons, though it may be tolerated at this time.

[LeftyMom]

32. The dad should feel free to fold, spindle or mutilate his own penis.

However, his religious rights do not permit him to control or make permanent changes to somebody else's body. If the boy's wishes are at all unclear, there is no harm at all in delaying the decision until he reaches adulthood, is presumably living independently, and can decide with less parental pressure.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ilsa]

41. I don't think it is the only religion that practices this.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/82/story_8246_2.html
Islam
Circumcision is not symbolic of being part of the Muslim community, as it is in Judaism, but most Muslims circumcise their sons. Though circumcision is not specifically mandated or mentioned in the Qur'an, many Muslims believe it is necessary because Allah ordered Muhammad to follow the way of Abraham, who circumcised himself. Many Muslims also believe circumcision is a form of cleanliness.

When:
Muslim boys can be circumcised on the seventh day of life, but the ritual can be done any time during the first few years of life, as long as it is before a boy's seventh year.
snip
Circumcision is often practiced among Coptic (Egyptian) Christians.
snip

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. Muhammad Adopted A Lot Of The Jewish Law In The Hope They Would Convert

I'm glad I was circumcised at birth... It would be a lot more traumatic at five or six...

[closeupready]

100. It's a form a cleanliness only if you believe the body is unclean. Most people bathe, so

dirt and personal filth are washed away regularly.

I suppose in lands where Islam holds sway - i.e., desert where water is scarce - there could be an argument made. But on its face, it's a nonsense argument, and you know it is especially if you've ever dated a man who is uncircumcised.

[LeftishBrit]

49. Same as several others.

Muslims also circumcize their boys; so do some Christian groups, especially in the East. Some indigenous African and Australian Aboriginal religions also practice circumcision. I believe that most Koreans circumcize their boys, though I don't know if this is for religious, medical, or just traditional reasons.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

54. I'm not so sure about Koreans

I knew a Jewish man who was married to a Korean woman, and she was shocked when she heard about circumcision.

[Historic NY]

38. Is this really what our Supreme Court is about?...I hear John Jay

rolling in his grave.

[connecticut yankee]

39. According to the Jewish religion,

the child takes the religion of the mother.

So if she doesn't want it done, it shouldn't be done.

Personally, I find the whole ritual barbaric, especially when done as a celebration.

[defendandprotect]

40. "HIS right???" What about his son's right to remain intact??? Go MOM . . .

I hope all the MOMS of the world stand up against this barbarous custom --- !!!

[Runcible Spoon]

43. Oi Veh. 13 is really old, he may suffer permanent nerve damage.

I knew a guy in college who had to get teh procedure for medical reasons, and it was the worst thing that ever happened ot his sex life. :evilfrown:

[merwin]

45. I love how this thread has turned into a fight over whether circumcision should be allowed.

And not over the legal issues involved in it.

Whether or not you are for or against circumcision has no bearing on this case. It's purely about the legal issue of whether the son should have the right to make that decision for himself at the age of 13.

If he's converting to Judaism, he's likely had numerous conversations with the Rabbi, as well as others in the church. Jews are not known for forcing outsiders to convert, and I can't see a Rabbi letting it go forward if he didn't think the son actually wanted it.

[LeftyMom]

52. Since when did teenagers get to consent to cosmetic surgery?

The simplest solution is to wait until he's of age and let the kid decide then, without all the parental pressure.

[merwin]

55. In Judiasm, 13 is "of age", is it not?

Besides, teenagers consent to your so called 'cosmetic surgery' all the time with parental permission. Since the father has custody, that burden has been met. I won't even get into the argument of your 'cosmetic surgery' statement, as that brings it away from the issue at hand to the pro/anti-circumcision argument.

[LeftyMom]

59. Since when did religious requirements have the slightest thing to do with the law?

Apparently there's some question as to whether this kid really consents or is under parental duress. As amputation of a significant fraction of his penis is rather dramatic and permanent, there's no reason not to wait until he's old enough that the matter of informed consent is clearer.

[LeftishBrit]

47. It should be up to the boy...

As others have said, it's unlikely that the synagogue or rabbi are exerting pressure, as Judaism, unlike some other religions, does not actively seek converts. There could well be pressure from the father himself, however. It's important to establish what the boy's real wishes are. From things I've heard, circumcision in older children or adults can be quite painful, so people need to be sure that it's what he wants.

[Vinca]

53. Anyone ever seen a circumcision? During a brief stint in nursing school

I had the privilege. Poor little baby spread eagled on a board and sliced without benefit of anesthesia. Brutal. Leave the kid alone.

[merwin]

56. My son had it done the day after he was born. Didn't even cry. Didn't even notice it going on.

Simply brutal!

[GCP]

58. Maybe he was one of the lucky ones who got anesthesia

I also saw it done to a newborn when I was in nursing school - baby practically turned blue he was screaming so much. Strapped down on a board, hands and feet tethered while the doctor cut off his foreskin.
If that wasn't torture, I don't know what is. My sons were lucky enough to be born British, circumcision is almost unknown over there except for religious purposes.

[LeftyMom]

61. Usually that's shock.

Newborns have few coping mechanisms, and needless to say, tearing the foreskin off of the glans (normally they're fused for the first few years of life) and then cutting off some of the most densely ennervated tissue on the human body is rather traumatic.

[merwin]

67. Shock that he didn't even so much as blink?

I think the initial pain of going through the birth canal would be far worse than this procedure :)

[LeftyMom]

70. That doesn't make a damned bit of sense.

But hey, whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

107. "had it done"!? YOU had it done to him! n/t

[krabigirl]

76. I think we should go the way of most European countries and just not do it. It's unnecessary.

[happyslug]

63. Here is the decision, dated from January 2008 NOT May 2008

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S054714.htm

The courts DISMISSED the objections of the Mother, for she did NOT have custody of the child when the Father decided to have the child Circumcised (He had Custody of the child at the time the father decided on Conversion).

The Court concern was the record was unclear if the CHILD agreed with the Circumcision. It was on that grounds the Court remanded the case to the Trial Court. It is from that decision the Father is appealing from. I do not see the Supreme Court taking this case, I see no Federal Issue in this case. The issue decided was NOT Freedom of Religion, but that the CHILD had to agree, and on the record that was unclear (A side issue was the Mother was still appealing the issue of custody at the time of trial, if Mother would win custody, she could deny the Circumcision as the custodian parent, just like the Father could have it done on the Child if custody was confirmed in him).

[AlphaCentauri]

64. If that is a serious religious believe, do women should go under mutilation too?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm1.htm

[happyslug]

78. Male circumcision seems to have some benefits, female circumcision has none.

Thus Male Circumcision is widespread in certain cultures, but not done in others. There seem to be no connection between male and female Circumcision. And at the cite mentioned above, Female Circumcising is NOT religious grounded but is a tribal tradition.

While male circumcision has become controversial in recent years, the benefits are know, through limited. For more see:

http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html
http://www.unaids.org/en/PolicyAndPractice/Prevention/MaleCircumcision/
http://www.dph.sf.ca.us/sfcityclinic/providers/MaleCircumcisionHIVvaccine.pdf

Note the above studies show advantage for MALE Circumcision, but similar studies have shown NO such potential advantages for Female Circumcision. Many of these advantages have been known for Millennia, but male circumcision has always had a strong fashion component (In Roman days male circumcision became more and more viewed as unfashionable, which continues in much of the world today). Semitic people (Arabs and Jews) were the largest practitioners of male circumcision in pre-Roman days, but even in those cultures it declined until the raise of Islam in the Seventh Century (Where is came back in fashioned among most Semitic cultures which became more and more tied in with Islam).

Do to recent research, the spread of HIV among Heterosexual males seems to be greatly reduced if the male is circumcised (No affect among Homosexuals has been observed). This was first observed over 20 years ago, but was rejected for the Mechanism was unknown (The medical Community dismissed it as a possible by-product of Culture, i.e those groups that did male circumcision also did NOT permit, to the same degree as non-circumcised tribes, sex outside of marriage. More recent studies indicate that HIV uses the foreskin in enter a male body from an infected female. No foreskin, up to 60% drop in the chance of HIV transmission. This does NOT hold for Homosexual transmission, but it is the most effective mechanism we have today in the fight against the Spread of AIDS (And for the people who object to that fact, please note I support research on a cure and a vaccine, but both look more and more unlikely the more we study AIDS, thus the best solution may be male circumcision, while admittedly a weak solution).

[Crunchy Frog]

82. Religions are purely human fabrications; purely a product of human belief.

If people BELIEVE something is religiously grounded, then ipso facto it is.

There is a connection between male and female circumcision in that all known cultures that practice female circumcision also practice male circumcision, though many that practice male do not practice female.

As far as HIV goes, the largely circumcised US has a higher rate of infection than largely uncircumcised Europe. The research that's been done in subsaharan Africa may have had some methodological flaws, but notwithstanding, the epidemiological conditions there are very different from those in the first world. I really think you'd be well advised to use a condom and to limit your number of sexual partners.

As far as the kid goes, I think all parties would probably be best off if the surgery were delayed until he's reached the age of majority.

[happyslug]

93. The high rates of HIV is the US refusal to provide clean needles

Which Europe does on a regular basis. Sharing needles is the most common form of AIDs transmission in the US at the present time.

Also note the studies involving reduction in AIDS transmission and Circumcision relate only to Heterosexual (Straight) sex NOT homosexual transmission. In Africa where the studies took place the main means of transmission in Heterosexual sex NOT homosexual sex or Needles. Thus Circumcision will have a affect on heterosexual transmission of the AIDs but NOT its transmission via needles or Homosexual sex.

[Crunchy Frog]

96. What about the higher rates of other sexually transmitted diseases?

[happyslug]

98. The only sexual disease I have read about recently has been Syphilis

And the report was that the rate of Syphilis in the US as the lowest since the 1950s (In the late 1950s America Health professionals were predicting the elimination of Syphilis within a few years based on the push to eliminate Syphilis first started during WWII, then the Recession of 1957 hit which lead to a cut in the US health budget and Syphilis was permitted to spread almost unchecked). This drop is believed to be related to the effort to reduce AIDS (Condoms works to reduce both transmission rates).

As to other sexually transmitted diseases, the fact the US does NOT have National Health Insurance while Europe does is an important factor. If you are poor in the US you have a very good chance of NOT ever seeing a doctor about your health, including sexually transmitted diseases. In Europe you have a good chance of seeing a Doctor and being treated (or at least being told you have it and how NOT to spread it). The greater willingness to give out Condoms is also a factor. Thus you have less people spreading sexual transmitted diseases do to both greater level of treatment AND more widespread knowledge of who has it and how NOT to transmit it.

[Indenturedebtor]

88. Thanks for the info... one note:

I seriously doubt that circumcision among Jews ever fell out of fashion. It's the mark of the contract with god. Sort of like baptism for many types of christian.

[happyslug]

95. The papers I read use the term "Semitic" not Jew

Arabs and other people of the Mid-East are Semitic (Iranians, Kurds and Turks and the three big exceptions). It is among these non-Jewish Semitics the drop seems to have occurred.

[Indenturedebtor]

97. Ah sorry phrasing was a little confusing

That i'll certainly believe.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

89. Why settle for 60%?

"No foreskin, up to 60% drop in the chance of HIV transmission."

Go for 100% and cut ALL of it off!

[happyslug]

94. It is a 60% REDUCTION in transmission rate

That is significant DROP in transmission rates. Most AIDS researchers go ecstatic on when they find a 1-2 % drop in transmission rates.

No one is calling this a Cure, No one is calling for reduction in research for a cure or a Vaccine. This drop if on the level of washing your hands (And the reduction of the spread of all decease by washing your hands). This exceeds the benefits of washing one's hands before and after you deal with a sick patient, this exceeds the benefit of wearing one of those cloth month masks doctors and nurses wear during operations. It is 100% effective NO, but neither is washing your hands or wearing a Cotton mask over your month in regards to most diseases. The key is will it help? And from the record we have at present it will.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

101. I fully appreciate the point you are . . .

trying to make. While tongue in cheek, my comment was not
intended to make light of the seriousness of AIDS.
I take serious issue though with those who whimsically lop
15 or more square inches of nerve cells off a penis for any
reason! I an convinced genital mutilation, male or female is
absolutely abhorrent.

[cstanleytech]

77. I still dont get this.

If the father did not convert until later in life why is he pushing his son to convert now? Why not wait until the kids older say around 18 to 20 and let him make up his decision?

[happyslug]

79. Read the opinion, cited above (Post #63) . The issue is did the Child Consent ?

At his present age, the Child consent is a factor, which the trial Judge did not give proper weight to (Probably because this has been 3 years in Litigation and now the Child is age 12 and that makes the opinion of the child a factor for the Court to decide, three years ago the child was 9 and in most states that is to young for the child to decide, and under Oregon law up to the Parent with Custody, which in this case is the Father).

[bitchkitty]

84. What does the kid want? If he's

willing to undergo the pain...a friend of mine had Pedro hemmed up when he was in his early 30s. Pedro was incapacitated by pain for days!
But then, is a 12-year old capable of making such a decision for religious reasons?

I hate religious rites like this. It's barbaric!

[asteroid2003QQ47]

87. Forever fuck up the boy's sex life? What sort of father...

would deliberately do that?

Erogenous tissue. the foreskin is heavily innervated even at birth and before.5 21 The foreskin is a specific erogenous zone6 with nerve endings near the surface of the ridged band arranged in rete ridges.29 The foreskin is noted for its sensory pleasure.12 36 51 Circumcision, therefore, diminishes sexual sensation.6 9 10 11 12 18 28 31 38 57 59 62 63 64

Impotence and sexual dysfunction. The nerves in the foreskin apparently provide an impulse to aid erection. Circumcision has long been associated with an increased incidence of impotence. Glover (1929) reported a case.2 Winkelmann (1959) suggested impotence as a possibility,6 as did Foley (1966).10 Stinson (1973) reported five cases.13 Palmer & Link (1979) reported two cases.14 More recently, additional evidence of sexual dysfunction after circumcision has emerged. Coursey et al. reported that the degradation in sexual function after circumcision is equivalent to the degradation experienced after anterior urethroplasty.47 Fink et al. reported statistically significant degradation in sexual function.49 A survey carried out in South Korea found that circumcised men reported painful erections, and diminished sexual pleasure, and a few reported curvature of the penis upon erection.48 Shen et al. (2004), in a study carried out in China, reported erectile dysfunction in 28.4 percent of the men in the study after circumcision, and 'weakened erectile confidence' in 34.7 percent.59

Loss of sexual pleasure. Denniston reported that some circumcised men would not have the operation again because of loss of sexual pleasure.61 Kim & Pang (2006) reported that 48 percent of Korean men in a survey experienced loss of mastubatory pleasure after circumcision as compared with 8 percent that experienced increased pleasure and 8 percent reported improved sexual life, but 20 percent reported worsened sexual life.66 Solinis & Yiannaki reported that 16 percent of the men in their study reported a better sex life after circumcision but 35 percent reported a worsened sex life.69

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/

[raebrek]

90. I think it is just parents arguing with a child caught in the middle n/t

[asteroid2003QQ47]

91. A rather simplistic and unsatisfactory explanation that...

trivializes the boy's plight.
It is child abuse and given the available information, the father is the would be perp.

----------------------------------------------------------------
"It's just a flesh wound!"
-Monty Python

[knitter4democracy]

104. Oh, man. This is just ugly.

Depending on the court order, usually the custodial parent has medical power of atty. Because of his age, chances are a moyle wouldn't touch him but instead have a urologist do it to make sure he doesn't get nerve damage and such. That means that the parent with medical deciding power gets to decide.

The best thing that the dad could do here is wait until the boy's an adult and can make his own decision. He might win the battle and get the right to circumsize him as part of the conversion process, but he might lose his son and a convert in the process. I wonder what the rabbi thinks.

[UnSantorum]

106. Calling all Rabbis

Is there a rabbi out there that would circ a 13-year old boy against his wishes -- just because the father wanted it done? What surprises me most is that apparently some Jewish groups filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the father. What's that all about?

[supernova]

108. Regardless of what happens legally

I feel sorry for this kid that his parents are so combative about a procedure, ceremony, that does not affect them personally.

And we still don't know how the kid feels about it. Is there no court appointed child advocate? Usually there is a rep for the child in these cases of medical decisions. :shrug:

[yurbud]

109. Too bad Johnny Cochrane isn't still alive: If he has a foreskin, it needs cuttin'.''

Or if he represented the mom: ''If the kids intact, he can't be hacked.''

[yurbud]

110. I had a friend who had this done at 12 and he said it hurt like a mother fucker

he had to get it done for medical reasons, adhesion or something like that, but almost wished the left it alone.