CUT & RUN: FUGITIVE FROM CIRCUMCISION

[HairOfTheDog]

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.



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