Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
CUT & RUN: FUGITIVE FROM CIRCUMCISION
#1
[Image: heatherhironimuschase_featured.jpg]
^That's Heather Hironimus and her son Chase. Heather is fighting to avoid the court-mandated circumcision of her child.

They live in Florida. Chase is 4-years-old. Chase's parents were never married; they share custody of the child.

When Chase was 1-year-old, both signed a parenting agreement which included a clause stating that dad, Dennis Nebus, would be responsible for arranging circumcision.

Heather claims the little boy is now old enough to understand about circumcision, that he's scared shitless of the procedure, and there's no medical or religious reason to have the boy cut (neither parent is Jewish).

Heather contends that the decision to have such cosmetic surgery should be left to her son Chase when he's old enough to make it.



[Image: dennis-nebus.jpg]
^ That's Dennis Nebus (right). He is fighting in court to have his son Chase handed over for circumcision because he himself is cut and it's "the normal thing to do", according to court docs.

The story spread on social media and Heather Hironimus and her son Chase have become poster children for activists against forced circumcision.

The judge sided with the dad, however, and ordered Heather to bring Chase to court so that Dennis Nebus could take his son to have the circumcision, citing the three year old parenting agreement.

Heather instead just checked into a women's shelter with Chase and failed to appear for the court appearance.

Heather Hironimus is now a fugitive with a warrant out for her arrest. Her attorney has asked the court to order an emotional and psychological test of Chase in relation to his ability to endure a circumcision procedure.

Refs:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/19...04124.html
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-b...story.html



What do you think should happen in this case?
Reply
#2
Where the hell do you get this stuff from? hah The child would be better of with the name "Sue" then he could kick his Dads ass through the mud and the blood and the beer.
He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
Reply
#3
(03-23-2015, 11:17 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: What do you think should happen in this case?


I don't think I'm qualified to answer that. I know nothing about circumcision other than a pecker without one looks like a mole.
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#4
(03-23-2015, 11:33 AM)Maggot Wrote: Where the hell do you get this stuff from? hah

From the news pages, mister. I posted links to a couple of the stories.

It seems to be a topic that's getting more traction these days anyway.

23 of the world's male population is uncircumcised. And, there is a growing number of people in the US who consider it genital mutilation and don't think it should be done unless the male is old enough to consent and agrees to the procedure.

What do you think, Mags? Would you go to court against an ex if she refused to let your son be circumcised as a toddler and you wanted it done?
Reply
#5


Are there any grown men who would willingly offer up their penis to be mutilated? Would any of the males in Mock?
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#6
If I would not be called "Mole-man" yes. That was an evil villain who battled Batman.
The Jews do it at 12yrs. old I think. Go after them...........Oh! you did.hah
He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
Reply
#7
Who went after Jews?

Anyway, I have never heard of Jewish boys being circumcised at 12 years old.

My brother-in-law and second youngest nephew are Jewish. Circumcision is hugely important in Judaism and the ritual is performed shortly after birth. We went to my nephew's ceremony when he was 8 days old. As far as I know, that's standard religious practice.

I didn't get to go to my nephew's Bar Mitzvah party, but that was held just after his 13th birthday.
Reply
#8
Circumcision is done shortly after birth for both the Jews and anyone else that wants to subject their newborns to the barbaric practice, very rarely is it done later in age. It's not in any way medically necessary and I think court ordering someone to have their child circumcised is absolutely absurd.
Reply
#9
(03-23-2015, 07:02 PM)sally Wrote: Circumcision is done shortly after birth for both the Jews and anyone else that wants to subject their newborns to the barbaric practice, very rarely is it done later in age. It's not in any way medically necessary and I think court ordering someone to have their child circumcised is absolutely absurd.

I hadn't really thought about it before I saw some stories popping up in the medical news, and then read about the OP case today.

All of my nephews are circumcised. Four of them had it done shortly after birth in the hospital -- it was thought to be for health reasons then, I think. For my Jewish nephew, it was a separate religious ceremony.

From what I've read recently, it's considered debatable whether there are any real health benefits associated with circumcision and there is reportedly a loss of sensation resulting from the removal of the foreskin. So, circumcision rates are dropping in the U.S.

[Image: -san-diego-shooterflickr.jpg?h=284&w=300]

The couple in the OP signed a legally-binding parenting agreement three years ago. I think that's why the judge is ordering the mom to deliver the boy to his father to have the procedure done; he considers that she is breaching that contract. Apparently, though, dad didn't bring up the circumcision until the boy was already 3 years old.

So, the mom has refused to sign the separate consent form required for the circumcision to be performed. The judge ordered her to sign it. She refused and appealed the judge's order, but the appellate court upheld the original judge's ruling.

Things are at a standstill legally now. Mother and son have been tucked away in a women's shelter for the last 2 weeks and mom's attorneys are not obligated to tell the court the location.

More on the story: http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/11/florid...ion-battle
Reply
#10
Even with a legally binding parenting agreement I still think it's unacceptable for the court to enforce it. There is no debate, any pediatrician (unless they're Jewish) will tell you that there is no medical reason for it. No one in Europe gets the procedure done other than Jews, I haven't heard of any of their dicks rotting off because of not having their foreskins mutilated.

There is zero evidence that it's medically necessary so basically what the court is doing is enforcing nothing other than a ridiculous Jewish ritual on the poor kid.
Reply
#11
(03-23-2015, 09:06 PM)sally Wrote: Even with a legally binding parenting agreement I still think it's unacceptable for the court to enforce it. There is no debate, any pediatrician (unless they're Jewish) will tell you that there is no medical reason for it. No one in Europe gets the procedure done other than Jews, I haven't heard of any of their dicks rotting off because of not having their foreskins mutilated.

No one ever questioned this. If you had a son, he was automatically circumcised. I have always been told it was for hygienic reasons. I certainly do not think the courts need to involve themselves with this kind of decision. Some decisions, I think, still need to be made by the parents, not the politicians unless it compromises the health and welfare of others. Another thing that was done automatically back in the dark ages (when I was a kid), was having your tonsils removed. Now, it is rarely done unless for specific medical issues. It could have saved myself from that traumatic event when all i could eat was ice cream hah
Reply
#12
Oh I know, I wasn't going to question it when my son was born 17 years ago. I never gave much thought to it prior and I just figured it was done for hygienic reasons. But my husband who is eastern European said hell no, there is no reason for that. So I asked the pediatrician and he also said there is absolutely no medically necessary reason for it.

I would have subjected my newborn baby to some barbaric Jewish practice and not even known what the hell it was for.
Reply
#13
It's been interesting reading the posts here and researching a bit about the protest movement against forced/automatic circumcision in the United States.

[Image: jewsfortherightsofthechild.jpg][Image: Anti_circumcision.jpg][Image: image.jpg]
[Image: 1146299_285328524940503_335883934_o.jpg][Image: 417511_10151155748891257_1993620036_n.jpg]
[Image: circumcision-protest-600.jpg]

I had no idea there was such a sizable and organized human rights movement across the country.

This is a good chart-like summary of the facts/arguments motivating anti-circumcision activists: http://circumcisiondecisionmaker.com/cir...ion-facts/
Reply
#14
(03-23-2015, 10:21 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I had no idea there was such a sizable and organized human rights movement across the country.

Well if you really stop to think about it, it is an absurd practice. We're mutilating penises over here left and right and don't even question why. It's already been proven there is no medical reason so that's out.

The only other reason to do it is because the punishment for not being circumcised in mainstream Judaism is believed to be "Karet", being cut off; meaning premature death at the hand of G-d (Mo'ed Katan 28a) and a severe spiritual punishment, the "soul's being cut off," and not being granted a share in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1,5).
Reply
#15
(03-23-2015, 11:03 PM)sally Wrote:
(03-23-2015, 10:21 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I had no idea there was such a sizable and organized human rights movement across the country.
The only other reason to do it is because the punishment for not being circumcised in mainstream Judaism is believed to be "Karet", being cut off; meaning premature death at the hand of G-d (Mo'ed Katan 28a) and a severe spiritual punishment, the "soul's being cut off," and not being granted a share in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1,5).

Yeah, I don't think most non-Jewish Americans have a clue as to the origins of the practice.

In my opinion, more than half of American parents continue to have their male newborns circumcised because it's become a common practice, or the males in their families were circumcised, or they believe that it's more attractive and cleaner for adult males and less traumatic to have it done in infancy, and/or they believe the contested health benefits make it a better choice for their babies.

I don't think that parents who choose to have their baby boys circumcised are in the wrong. But, I completely understand why some parents would opt against it and don't think they're in the wrong either. It should be each family's choice at birth. One thing's certain though: a circumcised male adult can't get the foreskin back, but an uncircumcised male adult can choose to have it removed.

So, since the parents in the OP case are at odds about it and the child is reportedly fearful of it, I don't think Chase's father should be able to force the circumcision against the will of the child and his mother unless there's proof that the boy's health is at risk without it (which there doesn't seem to be in this case). The parenting agreement can be amended and should be, in my opinion.
Reply
#16
Its just another step in pissing, pull back the peek-a-boo hood, then go. But I'm lazy.
He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
Reply
#17


I'm not going to be interested in a mole like penis.

Deal breaker!
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#18
(03-24-2015, 11:27 AM)Duchess Wrote:

I'm not going to be interested in a mole like penis.

Deal breaker!

Obviously it doesn't bother me, but even if it did I still don't think I'd throw some of these men out of bed.

http://www.ranker.com/list/340-and-uncir...w.2&page=4
Reply
#19


I saw some jocks in there :(

Guys probably don't give it any thought but they should probably make their intended sex partner aware of that little detail.

Mole! Run1
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#20


I'm just dickin' around. Not totally serious but some.
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply