Whilst I can forgive, and sort of understand, the deluded thinking that makes parents think they should mutilate their child's genitals ... the dad who actually makes it a legal requirement and then tries to enforce it when the child is three? Fuck that man, and fuck his sick obsession about his son's penis.

And am I the only person alarmed by the fact the mother has been ordered to follow through on the father's wish to have a piece of his kid's genitals snipped off without medical justification?

This is wrong on about a dozen levels.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:And am I the only person alarmed by the fact the mother has been ordered to follow through on the father's wish to have a piece of his kid's genitals snipped off without medical justification?

This is wrong on about a dozen levels.

That's one of the reason for my original comment:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:FFS indeed. This is messed up.

Those who claim "babies don't feel pain" has never changed a cloth nappy using safety pins and accidentally jabbed the kid.

Or, come to that, had a baby with nappy rash...

Also, even if the claims about lack of pain by proponents were true, it's really beside the point when what you're doing is inflicting permanent damage. We'd hardly excuse gouging a child's eye out under anaesthesia purely on the grounds that it 'causes no pain'.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Possibly a misunderstanding of embryology. The non-myelinisation of much of a baby’s nervous system may have been misinterpreted as an inability of a baby's nervous system to function. Their reactions were thought to be reflexive and not conscious.

Sort of, "Well I cut the end off his dick and he didn't say anything, so ..."?

The argument I have heard is that babies feel pain but quickly stop crying so they must forget it and don't really understand it. I think that is a load of fucking bullshit as well as the they don't feel pain argument.

The babies being circumcised in the late 19th century sans anaesthetic obviously said a lot and prior to the late 19th century the general consensus in the medical field was babies were more sensitive to pain than grownups, what with their new, fresh skin. The neuropathologist/anatomist Paul Flechsig who propelled myelinogenesis leaps and bounds forward though, upon being presented with all the new and exciting discoveries in embryology, equated the non-myelinisation of a baby's nervous system with an inability to consciously experience sensation and, therefore, labelled baby's response to pain reflexive. He wasn't the only doctor to think so either. Most doctors at the time believed the infant brain wasn't sufficiently mature to experience pain consciously and that newborn responses to pain were no different than kicking in response to a tap on the knee, which we do unconscious. Animal testing seemed to reinforce the theory.

There were also the beliefs if they can't consciously remember it it can't harm them long-term and that trying to manage a baby's pain is futile because it's impossible to measure so what's the point, etc.

Ultimately, this was at a time where putting an infant under general anaesthetic and managing post-operative pain meant opiates and safely utilising opiates for anaesthetic and analgesic purposes in an infant (or even an older child) is extremely difficult to do safely and carries a high risk. It was considered too much time and effort when weighed against the risk and the supposed benefits of circumcision were still considered worth the suffering.

The only good thing I can think of in this ugly case is the kid will be under general anaesthesia for the procedure if his mother is forced to have it performed on him. It's still horrible as the conscious experience of pain during the procedure is only one aspect about circumcision that's wrong but, as a toddler, he's got it a teensy bit better than little babies who either have local anaesthetic injected into their penises or just get topical anaesthetic to "take the edge off".

I do hope the father is at least forced to watch his kid suffer and provide all the aftercare if the poor little boy has his father' will forced on his penis.

I wonder why there's such a disconnect between female genital mutilation and male circumcision? Both are for basically religious or cultural reasons, both involve removing bits of skin that are naturally supposed to be there, both are done, usually, without pain killers, and both have opponents.

HOWEVER, FGM has extremely strong opposition, and rightly so, even at high government levels...but while male circumcision has some vocal opponents, it is mostly is just "accepted" with a shrug. For some reason. I dunno.

Because they're very different and done under very different circumstances for very different reasons. Where they cross over is basic, a violation of genital integrity. Beyond that though, they require very different approaches because all aspects regarding them differ. There isn't one solution for both. That's why this discussion shouldn't be derailed with talk of FGM and discussions of FGM shouldn't be sidetracked with "BUT ROUTINE INFANT CIRCUMCISION AHHHH". They're separate discussions.

Very little of the world practices circumcision so it's certainly not "accepted". It's considered fucking weird in most places and not considered something that needs addressing because it's only done as a last resort in medical cases. Furthermore, most circumcisions performed in North America aren't for religious or cultural reasons. People think it's comparable to vaccinating their child. They still genuinely believe it's superior to hygiene and safe sex with regards to health and wellness.

My initial knowledge was of routine infant circumcision, who does it, why do they, how do they, etc. and at the time I thought "This is no different than FGM!" I thought I was super smart and evolved and stuff. Then I spent from 19 to 22 studying all the same things with regards to FGM. Hooooooly shit. Yes, they're both violations of someone's bodily integrity. No, they are not the same and a one-size-fits-all solution will not do.

*UPDATE*

Human rights advocates believe Chase's physical and mental health are at risk. He is aware of his body and does not want to have surgery on his genitals. Forcing a child to undergo cosmetic surgery is a violation of basic human rights and medical ethics. This is an unprecedented case worthy of media attention.


http://www.youtube.com/savingchase4

I see Russell Crowe has even weighed in on this case:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... tupid.html

It's just hard to believe a child can be forced to undergo a completely unnecessary surgery like this. I haven't seen the dad explain his side yet. It's not a religious obligation for him. I think he's just being a jackass, using the child to punish the mother. So sad.

kme_barnwell wrote:
Human rights advocates believe Chase's physical and mental health are at risk. He is aware of his body and does not want to have surgery on his genitals. Forcing a child to undergo cosmetic surgery is a violation of basic human rights and medical ethics. This is an unprecedented case worthy of media attention.

There is no medical reason. The kid doesn't want it to happen.
Surely this should just be the fucking end of the matter?

What the fuck is wrong with these people? If I were the mother I'd have him out of the state SO fucking fast. Goddamn barbarians.

NamelessFaceless wrote:I see Russell Crowe has even weighed in on this case:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... tupid.html

It's just hard to believe a child can be forced to undergo a completely unnecessary surgery like this. I haven't seen the dad explain his side yet. It's not a religious obligation for him. I think he's just being a jackass, using the child to punish the mother. So sad.

Apparently a doctor blatantly lied during his statement on circumcision:

Urologist Dr. Charles Flack said in court that though circumcisions are not necessary, 'penile cancer occurs only in uncircumcised males and uncircumcised males have a higher risk of HIV infection than uncircumcised males,' according to records.

FFS.

Urologist Dr. Charles Flack said in court that though circumcisions are not necessary, 'penile cancer occurs only in uncircumcised males and uncircumcised males have a higher risk of HIV infection than uncircumcised males,' according to records.

You see this penis! It means that you're cancer proof and we don't have to worry about HIV so much.
......
Wait, what's that you say penis? That, even you think this is a load of bollocks and you don't actually have a brain to think with!
.......
Now the bollocks are complaining that you're using them as a pejorative. Look what you've started!
.....
Yes, I know you're only a reproductive organ and have a very limited understanding and the testicles should cut you some slack.
......
True, I should probably stop having a pretend conversation with you now.

How is this court ruling NOT unconstitutional? Can a court really force a parent to put a child through elective surgery?

DarthHelmet86 wrote:The argument I have heard is that babies feel pain but quickly stop crying so they must forget it and don't really understand it. I think that is a load of fucking bullshit as well as the they don't feel pain argument.

When do they start feelings pain?

CdesignProponentsist wrote:How is this court ruling NOT unconstitutional? Can a court really force a parent to put a child through elective surgery?

There have been tons of cases where elective surgery has been required against a parent choice, even to the point of removing the children from parent custody.

kme_barnwell wrote: He is aware of his body and does not want to have surgery on his genitals.

Presumably whomever he lives with will have the most influence over what he says.