mom who took son into hiding to save his foreskin sobs in court as she signs consent for circumcisio - Polidicks

there is no fucking way this can be legal

What bothers me is that the world is fucked up in such a way that it's okay to perform cosmetic surgery on a four-year-old boy's genitals, when we have accepted and vehemently defend a ban on cosmetic genital surgery (we even have a big severe abbreviation, FGM) on young girls. So society is fully aware that messing with a child's reproductive anatomy is totally disgusting, but only if they're a girl? Is it simply because circumcision is a pointless but long-standing religious tradition, or is it because we have some delusions of masculinity, like, 'the kid can handle it. He's a boy, he's tough'? In any case, if the kid is sided with the mother which I'm sure he is if she's told him Daddy's trying to chop the end of his dick off, when he turns 18 the father's short, sweet satisfaction will end in a pool of financial hell. Preferably not administered by the state of Florida because it's obvious that the justice system down there is FUBAR.

[QUOTE=Buck.;47806649]You wont see a single feminist complain about this.[/QUOTE] why wouldn't we

[QUOTE=bitches;47806652]this thread is for horrible SH shitpost arguments on circumcision, not feminism[/QUOTE] It is now :wink: [editline]26th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Terminutter;47806708]Hi, I'm a feminist and I consider this to be absolutely disgusting. The boy's dick is his own and a cosmetic surgery should not be performed until he is of an age to make his own decision, unless medical reasons are involved. In this case they are not, so the kid should be left alone.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=TacticalBacon;47806678]Hi I consider myself a feminist and think this is bullshit.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but the thing is you don't matter. No one in charge of these feminist organisations are speaking out against male genital mutilation and that is my point. In fact they will turn it around and go on how much better it is for hygiene, and health and so on.

Circumcision should be illegal unless for medical reasons or if an adult wants to do it on his own. Really whattefuk I bet nobody would decide to circumcise himself if he had a choice.

So why exactly does the father have a greater claim than the mother? Moreover, why is it EITHER of their choices and not the kid's? Totally barbaric.

What the fuck, surely consenting to something under duress (ie "you are going to prison if you don't consent") makes the consent void.

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;47806735]Indeed. Shame that it is really - we should think rationally about everything we do especially shit like genital mutilation... but nope "it's muh trudision"[/QUOTE] It's not even a tradition for any good reason. The only reason circumcision is so widely practised in the US today is because way back around the late 1800s John Harvey Kellogg encouraged people to do it so their kids wouldn't jack off (Not like that's stopped anyone).

The problem here is that she already agreed to it, formally, in their parenting agreement whatever that may be. It's still ridiculous though. [quote]She initially agreed in a parenting agreement filed in court, then changed her mind[/quote]

[QUOTE=thisispain;47806664]That's funny I was about to march in and be like "I can't believe they are doing this," and like "what kind of judge doesn't understand the concept of contracts void under duress," and "why doesn't the child get a say in this?"[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Lord of Ears;47806671]who the fuck unbanned you[/QUOTE] missed you tpain. tear it up. [editline]26th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=TheCreeper;47806772]Except this medical procedure is not critical to the childs health therefore it cannot be performed without the consent of the child and since the child cannot consent, they cannot perform the procedure. Its not ok for parents to give consent to perform cosmetic surgery on their children. These people need to be reminded that the child is not the property of the parent, the parent is the guardian of the child.[/QUOTE] stop trying to take my second third fourth and fifth chances away!! i can make them into whoever i want to be!!

[QUOTE=ferrus;47806914]So why exactly does the father have a greater claim than the mother? Moreover, why is it EITHER of their choices and not the kid's? Totally barbaric.[/QUOTE] Because the child is too young to consent to anything and thus consent for medical procedures falls on the parents unless a judge finds them to be acting against the child's best interest. The reason the father's claim was legally supported here is because the mother had previously consented but then reneged on their choice, so they were in breach of contract.

Contracts are defined as being something both parties agree to do here, any contract is void if there was no willingness on either party's side.

Having this kind of operation done to a child as young as 4 is a pretty horrifying experience to go though. I mean, at least if you're a baby/infant you won't remember it but past that it's defo something you won't forget. I had one last week today and it's not a good time, but at least I had a reason for it. That boy will be in tears for weeks.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;47806766]Children can't legally consent to any medical procedure, hence why it's generally the parents choice. I'm sure most people would rather not refuse to vaccinate people until they're 18.[/QUOTE] Because something that's critical to your health is totally the same thing as a procedure that's purely cosmetical most of the time

[QUOTE=SEKCobra;47807006]Contracts are defined as being something both parties agree to do here, any contract is void if there was no willingness on either party's side.[/QUOTE] But isn't the entire point of a contract to be a legally binding document so no party involved can reneger on their part without consent of the other parties?

The article gives pretty much no context but I do wonder if there is a medical/religious motive behind it?

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;47807111]But isn't the entire point of a contract to be a legally binding document so no party involved can reneger on their part without consent of the other parties?[/QUOTE] can you imagine the [I]chaos[/I] this would cause if lawyer's could cite the case of boy's foreskin vs dad if the foreskin won? [editline]26th May 2015[/editline] i am sure this kind of precedent (and not exception) would destroy our legal system [editline]26th May 2015[/editline] "'contracts' are meaningless", they would cry, "what of the blatant disregard for the [I]law[/I] in the groundbreaking foreskin vs dad case of 2015?"

[QUOTE=innerfire34;47807172]can you imagine the [I]chaos[/I] this would cause if lawyer's could cite the case of boy's foreskin vs dad if the foreskin won? [editline]26th May 2015[/editline] i am sure this kind of precedent (and not exception) would destroy our legal system [editline]26th May 2015[/editline] "'contracts' are meaningless", they would cry, "what of the blatant disregard for the [I]law[/I] in the groundbreaking foreskin vs dad case of 2015?"[/QUOTE] Except the mother nor the father had the power to sign on behalf of their child. The contract is already void

[QUOTE=download;47807222]Except the mother nor the father had the power to sign on behalf of their child. The contract is already void[/QUOTE] tell it to the judge

court ordered mutilation, what a disgustingly vile justice system you have fucking hell

also thanks buddy couldn't keep the discussion going without you parroting what other people already said for literally no reason at all

Someone need to be sued into poverty here. This is fucking sick.

Why would someone be so hell bent on cutting baby dicks

[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;47806934]It's not even a tradition for any good reason. The only reason circumcision is so widely practised in the US today is because way back around the late 1800s John Harvey Kellogg encouraged people to do it so their kids wouldn't jack off (Not like that's stopped anyone).[/QUOTE] I thought it was part of some religious thing, not about an absurd fear of having their kid have a self discovering experience.

[QUOTE=Nitro836;47807289]I thought it was part of some religious thing, not about an absurd fear of having their kid have a self discovering experience.[/QUOTE] Its religious only to jews. To Christians it was an anti-fap idea.

Imagine if his parents never told him he was circumcised and when he watches porn for the first time he will be like, "what the fuck?" xD

[QUOTE=McSniper12;47807330]Imagine if his parents never told him he was circumcised and when he watches porn for the first time he will be like, "what the fuck?" xD[/QUOTE] It's funny cause that's actually what happens most of the time.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;47807311]Its religious only to jews. To Christians it was an anti-fap idea.[/QUOTE] Not really, Christians kinda came down from Jews. Both religions believe in Jesus who told them that circumcision is important

[QUOTE=itisjuly;47807311]Its religious only to jews. To Christians it was an anti-fap idea.[/QUOTE] I'm a Christian and I never knew that, except the Jew part. Jews cut their foreskins off to allow a stronger connection between God and them.

[QUOTE=proch;47807262]Why would someone be so hell bent on cutting baby dicks[/QUOTE] If they didn't then Satan would eventually take possession of the boy's wang. uhh.. that's how rapists and pedophiles are made, right?