Sign in to follow this  
nick

Florida Judge Orders Circumcision Of 4 Year Old.

Recommended Posts

read this in the IHT and other media sources today and found it beyond barbaric. a florida judge ruled in favor of the estranged husband and father of a 4 year old boy that he must be handed over to the court to be circumcised according to the verbal agreement between mother and father before dad became persona non gratis. the mother has become a fugitive because she is petrified (according to reports as is the infant) about the procedure and it's psychological effects for the little boy. WTH? since when can a judge "order" this in America? this kid is four years old. not four months, and there is no medical reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as far as i'm concerned you shouldn't be putting a 4 year old under to take off his foreskin. with no medical reason. at 4 years old you're old enough to comprehend what will happen. I don't know the back story either but bet it's inanely religious. on loser daddy's part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

based on due to she reengaged on the legal agreement under parenting plan of circumcision...she signed a contract..which is part of the court records

Last week, Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Jeffrey Dana Gillen issued a final order, allowing Dennis Nebus, of Boca Raton, to circumcise his son, 3-year-old Chase. The boy’s mother, Heather Hironimus, is appealing.

I think it’s clear from the names of the main characters in this story (other than the judge) that these are not Jews arguing over the Biblical commandment of circumcision. In fact, according to the Orlando Sentinel, which reported this story, Chase’s father and mother were never married.

In other words, Nebus is what’s known in some parts as the baby daddy. Why should he have the power to dictate the medical future of a child that isn’t officially under his care?

In his order, Judge Gillen notes that the mother, Ms. Hironimus, signed a parenting plan of circumcision in December 2011, as did Mr. Nebus. The plan was that Nebus arrange the circumcision. It’s part of the court records.

And that’s the basis for the Judge’s decision, forcing a woman to submit her son to a brutal violation of his person, against her best judgement: you signed the contract, you can’t change your mind about it.

Can you imagine someone contracting to donate, say, a kidney, then changing their mind only to be forced by a judge like this one to lie down and give up the body part?

Honestly, it’s hard to imagine a more invasive intrusion on the part of a court in people’s privacy.

After signing the agreement, back in 2011, Heather Hironimus changed her mind about the circumcision. She told her baby daddy that it was not medically necessary and that it could be a risky operation for the infant, because of the general anesthesia.

And she was right.

Don’t get me wrong, as a Jewish person, I support with every fiber in my body the requirement, even the need for Jewish parents to circumcise their sons. But over the years, I’ve read tons of evidence proving both sides of the circumcision debate, and I have had no use for them. The only valid reason I see for the brutal attack with a sharp knife on a defenseless infant is if God said so.

Otherwise, I completely agree with the voices out there suggesting circumcision is an aggressive violation of an infant’s civil liberties.

During the hearing, according to the Sentinel, a pediatric urologist named Dr. Charles Flack told the judge that circumcision is not medically necessary. But then he added that “penile cancer only occurs in uncircumcised males,” and that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection.

Those reasons sound very convincing, but then you have to ask yourself: aren’t there other ways to avoid the HIV virus? I’m told using a condom during sex goes a long way in that direction. And yet, can you imagine a judge out there forcing people to wear condoms against their will?

As to penile cancer – I checked it out on the Internet (where I do most of my thinking), and guess what: besides not being circumcised, the risk factors for developing ****** cancer include human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, phimosis (a condition where the foreskin cannot be fully retracted), poor hygiene, multiple sexual partners, tobacco use and – wait for it – being age 60 or older.

I could see the judge ordering folks to avoid becoming 60 on the grounds that it could make their ****** sick, but it would probably be overturned.

What this judge did was side with the man whose involvement in the caring for the child has been, for all we know, spending that blissful night with his mom, almost four years ago, and now making him get the cut.

The court order also forbids the mother to tell her son that she is against the procedure: “Mother shall not in any way lead (her son) to believe that she is or was opposed to his being circumcised, whether or not she accompanies (her son) to the procedure.”

Heather Hironimus is on GoFundMe, where she’s already picked up just under the 10 grand she needed for her legal fees. Go help, if you’re into it. And ask yourself if we, as Jews, shouldn’t be committed to supporting people who were not told by God to circumcise their sons, just by this judge in Palm Beach, Florida.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully agree with the content of your oped piece. if I signed a contract agreeing to cut off the tip of my son's toe i'm pretty sure there isn't a court in the country who would judge me in contempt of contract terms and conditions if I changed my my mind. this is a child's body parts we're talking about, and I wonder why the heck baby daddy is so keen on getting this done. getting revenge on baby mommy or just a perv?

the article also points out that it is unclear whether baby daddy has been responsible (or honored his paternal obligations) for the care of this child. WTH is he or the judge to make decisions like this anyway. if were that kids mom i'd be out getting the best civil liberties lawyer to take my case and do it pro bono.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why, is it automatically assumed, the father is the whack job? That it's he, who is acting out of spite?

The mother signed the agreement, which I think, is a stupid thing to sign, to begin with, but, suppose she's the one, who is now reneging out of spite?

The man isn't always the bad guy, he just always gets the blame because, he's a man.

Women get more sympathy because, they're supposed to be the, "weaker" sex, some women really know how to play it.

I agree, a man should take care of his kids, but, this is a different matter and, should have no bearing, if he isn't paying child support, he needs to taken to a court that deals with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It keeps being brought up, about it being a child's body parts.

Yes, it is, but, the mother did agree and, sign the document.

Why is the father the only one being crucified?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it has been reported, and I find it entirely plausible, that the child was informed about the procedure and is terrified. I think I would be too. the mother is acting out of a primal instinct to protect the psychological well-being of her child. did you bother to read the oped piece?

it has nothing to do with child support--clearly you haven't read the oped piece. it has to do with the child's psychological welfare. neither you or nor I know if he has even taken care of this child in any way. baby daddy's are almost ALWAYS the losers. I haven't had one but I know women who have and I've chased them out of the house with a big dog and a baseball bat. they always want money. go figure...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You, nick, brought up child support. You questioned the father's right to demand anything, when, he probably wasn't even supporting his son.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen the other side. I have know women to take so much from a man, he was left with not enough to support himself.

I've known women who have lied about paternity just for money.

Those same women denied visitation but, made sure the man knew where he could send the checks.

Funny, how the mother in this case, wasn't thinking about her son's disfigurement when she agreed to it, on a legal document.

There are just as many deadbeat moms, as there are dads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are just as many deadbeat moms, as there are dads.

Just to define terms... by deadbeat, are we meaning a parent who has been ordered to pay child support and is not doing so? As opposed to a parent who hasn't been taken to court and formally told that they must support their child and who is not doing so? There are a lot of single parent households who are not getting any money from the other responsible party and also have not actually asked/demanded it for whatever reason. Does that make the non-paying party just kinda irresponsible, or does that = deadbeat?

I think official statistics only count 'deadbeat' as someone who has been legally ordered to pay child support and does not. If you account for ALL parents who have a child who may not be participating financially, the #'s change up a fair bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I would say, the term deadbeat refers to any parent who doesn't contribute to their children's support, whether ordered to, or not ( a parent shouldn't have to be ordered to support their own children).

Maybe, deadbeat wasn't the word I should have used.

There are just as many, crappy, uncaring, moms as there are dads.

That's better.

Edited by equicrzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are just as many, crappy, uncaring, moms as there are dads.

It's sad, isn't it? People have kids because they can, or think they should, or don't plan ahead, or want someone to love them, or whatever.... It's all backwards. It should be HARD to produce children and require real effort and commitment in order to reproduce one rather than the other way around. :(

If people had to go through the same effort in order to GET pregnant that they do today to avoid pregnancy, it would be a pretty different parenting environment out there!!! (and birth control isn't all THAT hard to do... but you have to DO something!!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is sad. Especially when the ultimate goal is, money. Whether it's through more welfare,a bigger tax return, or, money paid by multiple fathers.

A lot of times, those kids are neglected and, or, abused, because, they aren't the desired product, the money is.

I almost want to say, do whatever it takes to prevent those women from reproducing, but, alas, even though, it would prevent unwanted children being born for profit, it isn't something this country could/would do.

Edited by equicrzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it astonishing that the child's wellbeing went totally by the wayside in this discussion. and reprehensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon nick, nothing went by the wayside.

It's the parents who aren't taking the child's well being into consideration.

Edited by equicrzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of course everything went offroad. the discussion digressed into one regarding two people who conceived a child (baby daddy obviously condomless and clueless) and ignored the civil rights of a 3 year old kid. to remove some of his body parts. how about if we do this? we take the tip of your husband's toe off because you signed a contract. oops, that's different--he's an adult who can defend himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm not sure how to debate if it is ok to lop off a 4 years foreskin. Old enough that recovery is going to be more difficult than as a newborn more material that needs to heal, in addition to the kid being old enough to be very aware of the fact that something very painful has happened to his peepee, which I'm guessing he already knows is different than getting a booboo on his finger. Physically and mentally traumatic.

Enforcing the 'contract' is bizarre. What kind of parents even have such a thing in a contract? Was it in place as a newborn, and then not bothered to attempt enforcement until 4 years later? Make no sense to me, and the judge is an idiot IMO.

Therefore, I helped it digress into a discussion about crappy parenting, which clearly (to me) is what is taking place in this instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick, I don't think anyone sees this as okay, or, doesn't feel for the child.

I think it's a bad idea, all the way around, for those parents to be squabbling about it, putting a 4 year old in the middle, I think they both have severe mental issues.

But, as has been pointed out, to me, more than once, it isn't a debate if both sides aren't represented.

Edited by equicrzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

third party parent plan which probably was court ordered for some reason. according to the statement it was in court records...... they are the ones who came up with the contract/agreement had both parents signed..

I question where was the child advocate who should have spoken up for child's rights, being a minor in which some courts do provide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is sad. Especially when the ultimate goal is, money. Whether it's through more welfare,a bigger tax return, or, money paid by multiple fathers.

A lot of times, those kids are neglected and, or, abused, because, they aren't the desired product, the money is.

I almost want to say, do whatever it takes to prevent those women from reproducing, but, alas, even though, it would prevent unwanted children being born for profit, it isn't something this country could/would do.

Yet this country evidently WILL insist a 4 year old get his foreskin chopped off. How great is THAT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it happens a lot of places in the world. including to females as old as 13-19. and not only in sub-Saharan countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess, it's finally happened, no longer can a person say the words, " it could never happen HERE, in THIS country "!

It appears, anything goes these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this