Treating A Kid Like Meat
Vicki Glembocki writes at Readers Digest of a divorced father who'd converted to Judaism and wanted his 9-year-old son circumcised -- an idiotic unnecessary surgical procedure on a kid who apparently told his mother he didn't want it (smart kid!), and was afraid to tell his father:
The next day, she filed for a temporary restraining order against her ex-husband to prevent the circumcision. She got it, then filed a motion to keep James from having the boy circumcised at all, and another to have custody switched to her.She'd appealed for a change in custody before, but this time, the case would travel all the way to the supreme court of Oregon, the state where she lived.
Since their divorce in 1999, when their son was four, the Boldts had battled over who should be the primary caregiver. First it was Lia. Then in 2002, the court gave James sole custody because it determined that Lia's attitude toward James was turning the boy against his father. Lia's appeals were still awaiting court review when she filed the request to block the circumcision.
James, insisting that his son did want the procedure, submitted an affidavit from the boy's doctor in support of his claim. James also argued that stopping him from having his son circumcised violated his own religious rights.
The trial court ruled that decisions regarding elective surgery rest, as they always have, with the custodial parent--in this case, James Boldt. Still, the court barred the circumcision from taking place until the prior custody appeals were resolved.
...The Verdict
Throughout five years of deliberations--with many affidavits, briefs, and claims from both parents about their son's wishes--the boy was never questioned, not even in a judge's private chambers. The Oregon Supreme Court ruled that he didn't need to wait until age 18 to make up his mind. It decided that the 14-year-old should be asked now what he wants.
None of these geniuses bothered to ask the kid? Brilliant.
Last April, at a hearing in the judge's chambers of the Jackson County Circuit Court, the boy finally spoke for himself: He did not want to be circumcised. He also said he didn't want to convert to Judaism, was afraid to tell his father how he felt, and was even afraid to continue living with him. It took five more months to resolve the custody issue, but finally, in September, the judge approved a settlement that James proposed and Lia accepted: The Boldts will have joint custody, with Lia as the primary parent and James receiving visitation. The main factor in their agreement: their son's preference.
Of course, as I've blogged before, no child should be put through an unnecessary surgical procedure without being old enough and able enough to consent. (All the uncircumcised 9-year-olds looking to get a piece of Mr. Happy hacked off, raise your hands!)
In this instance I agree with you Amy. If the kid isn't circumsized in the first couple months, it should only be later in life at his discretion.
Eric at April 1, 2012 11:07 AM
While I do not oppose circumcisions, I do agree with you in this situation.
If it's not done within the first couple of months, it should be at the child's discretion only with approval from both parents. The child doesn't want it...then, no. The parents are not in agreement...then, no.
Cat at April 1, 2012 11:24 AM
Unless you are part of a religion that requires it or live in an environment where you can't get a shower every week, I really don't see the point of circumcision. Why would you hack part of your boy's dick off? It's an elective surgery.
You might as well be getting a Megadeath tattoo on your kid. It serves about as much purpose.
I'll reserve the barbarism comments to some forms of female circumcision.
ZombieApocalypseKitten at April 1, 2012 1:54 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/04/01/treating_a_kid.html#comment-3115063">comment from ZombieApocalypseKittenBecause primitive religious beliefs require you to hack off bits of your unconsenting child's sex parts through medically unnecessary surgery doesn't mean it is civilized or ethical to do it. It is neither.
Amy Alkon
at April 1, 2012 1:56 PM
I am so full of outrage over this two year old Reader's Digest article.
Randy Sexer at April 1, 2012 2:08 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/04/01/treating_a_kid.html#comment-3115087">comment from Randy SexerDo you think circumcision no longer goes on? The article is from 2010, and this particular case has been resolved, but it is barbaric, risky and unwarranted to perform unnecessary surgery on children due to one's evidence-free belief in god and following of all the silliness that goes along.
Amy Alkon
at April 1, 2012 2:13 PM
Yet another reason never to divorce if you have kids!
momof4 at April 1, 2012 2:28 PM
From the article: "James also argued that stopping him from having his son circumcised violated his own religious rights."
BulllllllSHIT! If his religion requires him to be circumcised, he can go get snipped with pinking shears and give himself a frilly dilly for all I care. His religious freedoms are not hampered by preventing his child from having the procedure done to him.
Patrick at April 1, 2012 3:19 PM
What Patrick said.
The most amazing mental disease the religious have contracted is the idea that others must be compelled to do what they say.
Hey, Thumper, if your religion is so wonderful, simply lead by example. You'll get all the followers you deserve in this way.
Meanwhile, obsessing about whether your toddler has been cut pretty much makes you a sicko. Get help.
Radwaste at April 1, 2012 5:38 PM
I'll be honest, that the father wanted the son cut is no suprise even though it is outrageous. But the thing that pisses me off most about this article, it how from the title and the opening argument that it comes across as an offront agaisnt mothers to do something they dont want as oppsed to the fact that it was something the boy didnt want.
I mean why didnt the title read "Should a boy get circumscised against HIS wishes"?
lujlp at April 2, 2012 9:44 AM
Well, this is late, but here's a dismal scene.
Radwaste at April 12, 2012 5:32 PM
Leave a comment