Foreskin fixation - circumcision in the courts.

[catsmate]

Heather Hironimus and Dennis Nebus are fixated on their son’s foreskin. It is an obsession that has bound them together long beyond the end of their relationship. Nebus believes their 4 1/2-year-old son, Chase Ryan Nebus-Hironimus, should be circumcised for medical reasons. Hironimus believes circumcision is barbaric genital mutilation. Nebus has gone to court to get his son circumcised. Hironimus has gone to jail to prevent it. Their dispute is easily the weirdest, saddest, most disturbing battle yet in the war over circumcision.

Slate.

 

[The Greater Fool]

That foreskin never harmed anyone!

Friend of Mohel: "Where did you get that coin purse?"
Mohel: I saved up from about 100 procedures, then sewed the forskins together.
Friend of Mohel: "That is a handsome, and unique, coin purse."
Mohel: "Thanks, but the REALLY unique part is that when I rub it, it becomes a suitcase.

 

[Loss Leader]

Legally, it's not a battle over circumcision. It's about enforcing a written parenting agreement. She may not now want the boy circumcised, but she agreed to do it in exchange for good and valuable consideration.

All the court had to do was find that the agreement wasn't so terrible as to be void as public policy. I wouldn't really call this a "win" for either side.

 

[marplots]

What's next, she won't let him get his ears pierced?

 

[The Mutha]

I believe there's a lot more to the story than just a father wanting his son circumcised and the mother not. Based on what I've read, the son is having issues with the foreskin not growing correctly, which is causing some issues with urination. If that's the case, the circumcision needs to be done sooner rather than later.

I was a surgical tech in on a two hour circumcision done on a 15 year old. There was no doubt that it should have been done years before. The foreskin had grown so tight that the kid couldn't draw it back to clean his penis properly. The smell was horrendous.

Of course, it also could be that the father is trying to mess with the mother emotionally or vice versa. I feel sorry for the kid, and hopefully if it truly is a medical issue, it gets taken care of quickly.

Parents who put their kids in the middle of their divorces are child abusers in my eyes. That kid is half of the other parent and denigrating the other parent in front of the kid is just wrong, on so many levels.

 

[ZirconBlue]

What's next, she won't let him get his ears pierced?

Please don't go down that rabbit hole again. Ear piercing is in no way analogous to circumcision. For starters, all one has to do to reverse an ear piercing is to stop wearing earings.

 

[Swordfishtrombone]

I believe there's a lot more to the story than just a father wanting his son circumcised and the mother not. Based on what I've read, the son is having issues with the foreskin not growing correctly, which is causing some issues with urination. If that's the case, the circumcision needs to be done sooner rather than later.

I was a surgical tech in on a two hour circumcision done on a 15 year old. There was no doubt that it should have been done years before. The foreskin had grown so tight that the kid couldn't draw it back to clean his penis properly. The smell was horrendous.

Of course, it also could be that the father is trying to mess with the mother emotionally or vice versa. I feel sorry for the kid, and hopefully if it truly is a medical issue, it gets taken care of quickly.

Parents who put their kids in the middle of their divorces are child abusers in my eyes. That kid is half of the other parent and denigrating the other parent in front of the kid is just wrong, on so many levels.

Agreed, on all accounts. I would classify myself as opposing medically unnecessary circumcision performed on a baby or a child - but clearly if there is a medical issue, the operation should be considered just like any other medically warranted operation; do the benefits of the surgery outweigh any risks? And in the case of circumcision; is the medical issue significant enough that it warrants doing before the child is old enough to make an informed decision themselves?

The answers to both those questions may well be "yes", in which case a circumcision should be done.

 

[Beerina]

Please don't go down that rabbit hole again. Ear piercing is in no way analogous to circumcision. For starters, all one has to do to reverse an ear piercing is to stop wearing earings.

Ya! Circumcision only cuts off part of the penis. Giving the lad earrings cuts it entirely off.

 

[marplots]

Please don't go down that rabbit hole again. Ear piercing is in no way analogous to circumcision. For starters, all one has to do to reverse an ear piercing is to stop wearing earings.

Does that mean that if someone would escrow the money for plastic surgery to repair a circumcision, all would be happy? Because if not, the objection fails.

But I thought the objection was to the modification + pain and without permission of the victim or necessity. If the sole objection is going to be the inability to switch back, it doesn't strike me as a very powerful argument at all.

How about the best of both worlds? Tattoo your kiddie: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/mother-tattoo-son_n_2591132.html

 

[luchog]

Agreed, on all accounts. I would classify myself as opposing medically unnecessary circumcision performed on a baby or a child - but clearly if there is a medical issue, the operation should be considered just like any other medically warranted operation; do the benefits of the surgery outweigh any risks? And in the case of circumcision; is the medical issue significant enough that it warrants doing before the child is old enough to make an informed decision themselves?

The answers to both those questions may well be "yes", in which case a circumcision should be done.

There is actually no significant medical reason for routine circumcision. It's a religious practice that was adopted culturally in the US.

There are rare instances of medical necessity, eg. phimosis, but these can be caught as soon as they start to manifest, and the circumcision can be done at that time. There is no other legitimate reason to do it.

 

[Aepervius]

I believe there's a lot more to the story than just a father wanting his son circumcised and the mother not. Based on what I've read, the son is having issues with the foreskin not growing correctly, which is causing some issues with urination. If that's the case, the circumcision needs to be done sooner rather than later.

I was a surgical tech in on a two hour circumcision done on a 15 year old. There was no doubt that it should have been done years before. The foreskin had grown so tight that the kid couldn't draw it back to clean his penis properly. The smell was horrendous.

Of course, it also could be that the father is trying to mess with the mother emotionally or vice versa. I feel sorry for the kid, and hopefully if it truly is a medical issue, it gets taken care of quickly.

Parents who put their kids in the middle of their divorces are child abusers in my eyes. That kid is half of the other parent and denigrating the other parent in front of the kid is just wrong, on so many levels.

The urologist a *specialist* questioned the diagnose, as mentioned the article and i would question it too. there are condition which lead to foreskin problem phimose , i got it, and and that is quite clear the urologist would have detected it.

in the light that the "diagnose" was given by a pediatrician and contested by a specialist , I am pretty sure to bet that the father is simply trying to enforce the circumcision out of belief.

 

[Aepervius]

Does that mean that if someone would escrow the money for plastic surgery to repair a circumcision, all would be happy? Because if not, the objection fails.

But I thought the objection was to the modification + pain and without permission of the victim or necessity. If the sole objection is going to be the inability to switch back, it doesn't strike me as a very powerful argument at all.

How about the best of both worlds? Tattoo your kiddie: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/mother-tattoo-son_n_2591132.html

There is no comparison with a plastic surgery to reconstruct. I am sorry but where did you get that foreskin reparation would be the same as having a foreskin intact ? As far as i can tell any reparation would be cosmetic as the nerve cannot be finely reconnected.

 

[The Don]

The urologist a *specialist* questioned the diagnose, as mentioned the article and i would question it too. there are condition which lead to foreskin problem phimose , i got it, and and that is quite clear the urologist would have detected it.

in the light that the "diagnose" was given by a pediatrician and contested by a specialist , I am pretty sure to bet that the father is simply trying to enforce the circumcision out of belief.

Docking of dogs' tails was made illegal in the UK with the exception of working dogs. It's amazing how many "working dogs" there in breeds that were habitually docked.

In the event that circumcision is only allowed on medical grounds I'd be astonished if there weren't doctors out there who ended up specialising in finding those medical grounds.

 

[marplots]

There is no comparison with a plastic surgery to reconstruct. I am sorry but where did you get that foreskin reparation would be the same as having a foreskin intact ? As far as i can tell any reparation would be cosmetic as the nerve cannot be finely reconnected.

So what? It's cosmetic before you clip it too. Vestigial even. No one is going to shout if you clip off an extra nipple based on the idea that it has nerves. We are human beings - masters of our own physiology. Body modification is a thing because we can do it without too much danger of lasting harm.

Is there some naturalistic fallacy going on, where whatever God (or Momma Nature) constructs should be off limits? I can't buy into that. There ain't nothing holy about a foreskin.

 

[marplots]

Docking of dogs' tails was made illegal in the UK with the exception of working dogs. It's amazing how many "working dogs" there in breeds that were habitually docked.

In the event that circumcision is only allowed on medical grounds I'd be astonished if there weren't doctors out there who ended up specialising in finding those medical grounds.

It is funny. Don't cut their tail, but if you want to whack off their balls, feel free.

 

[casebro]

I would suspect that the water pick ear nozzle would it clean. And lead to a natural stretching as the boy grows.

 

[Edx]

A foreskin is a great deal more than being "cosmetic" than a labia and if we think little girls might have them cut off everyone goes nuts (pun?).

For those that really imagine a circumcision isn't reducing sensitivity, all you have to do is ask someone with a foreskin if he would find it uncomfortable to have his foreskin rolled down while in his pants. Someone that is circumcised won't even notice it, someone who isn't will be in pain and discomfort. Not to mention that circumcision comes with risks where thy damage the penis in various ways, as well as there being some chance of complete or partial removal of the penis and even death. For an entirely unnecessary procedure it should be illegal for little children on this basis alone.

 

[marplots]

A foreskin is a great deal more than being "cosmetic" than a labia and if we think little girls might have them cut off everyone goes nuts (pun?).

For those that really imagine a circumcision isn't reducing sensitivity, all you have to do is ask someone with a foreskin if he would find it uncomfortable to have his foreskin rolled down while in his pants. Someone that is circumcised won't even notice it, someone who isn't will be in pain and discomfort. Not to mention that circumcision comes with risks where thy damage the penis in various ways, as well as there being some chance of complete or partial removal of the penis and even death. For an entirely unnecessary procedure it should be illegal for little children on this basis alone.

Good analysis. Now all that's needed is some justification why sensitivity is a good thing. For example, do circumcised males have fewer children? (Providing, of course, that they want more children.) Do they find the lack of a foreskin detrimental?

The fact that a specific modification produces a difference is only a reflection on what the word modification means. It says nothing about whether or not we should make the change.

Here's a thought. We could ask the medical experts for their opinion on the matter. Just as soon as you can't get a doctor to do the procedure, the matter will be settled. But for now, the pro-choice stance is best. One may personally disagree with circumcision, without denying it to those who think it's the thing to do.

 

[Checkmite]

So what? It's cosmetic before you clip it too. Vestigial even.

It is not vestigial. A vestigial structure is a nonfunctional remnant of an historically extant functional body part. The foreskin does perform a function, albeit one that is not crucial to life; and it does not represent some older, more functional structure. There are other similar parts of the body as well; but the penis is magical in human thinking, such that many people feel compelled to micromanage its appearance. And the appearance of their infant's.

 

[This is The End]

The odds of it ever being made illegal, in the USA, are zero. Not one chance in hell. Bank on it.

(Unless, of course, the USA were to be overthrown or for whatever reason receive an entirely new government.)

And, as Loss Leader pointed out in post #3, the story from this OP has nothing to do with that. It's about a contract.

(I bet there will be dozens of pages in this thread anyway.)