Oregon Supreme Court blocks circumcision! - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-25-2008, 02:47 PM - Thread Starter
 
carriebft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingn...blocks_fa.html

They want the MINOR child to be heard! Could this be amazing news for the intactivist movement?

Well, upon further reading, perhaps not...but still a good thing.

"Parents are simply trustees; they do not own the bodies of their children"-Norm Cohen  Martial arts instructor intactlact.gifhomebirth.jpgnak.gif and mom to 4: DD1 (1/05) DS (7/06) DD2 (5/08) DD3 (2/11)
carriebft is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-25-2008, 02:55 PM - Thread Starter
 
carriebft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This is the actual decision link and an piece of what was written:

Quote:
Although the parties and amici have presented extensive material regarding circumcision, we do not need to decide in this case which side has presented a more persuasive case regarding the medical risks or benefits of male circumcision. We conclude that, although circumcision is an invasive medical procedure that results in permanent physical alteration of a body part and has attendant medical risks, the decision to have a male child circumcised for medical or religious reasons is one that is commonly and historically made by parents in the United States. We also conclude that the decision to circumcise a male child is one that generally falls within a custodial parent's authority, unfettered by a noncustodial parent's concerns or beliefs -- medical, religious or otherwise. Were mother's concerns or beliefs regarding circumcision all that were asserted in the affidavits in this case, we would conclude that mother did not carry her initial statutory burden to demonstrate a sufficient change in circumstances demonstrating father's inability to properly care for M.
Well, at least they acknowledged a little about circumcision...

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S054714.htm

"Parents are simply trustees; they do not own the bodies of their children"-Norm Cohen  Martial arts instructor intactlact.gifhomebirth.jpgnak.gif and mom to 4: DD1 (1/05) DS (7/06) DD2 (5/08) DD3 (2/11)
carriebft is offline  
Old 01-25-2008, 02:59 PM
 
Papai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ugh, they didn't want to get into whether or not circumcision was morally wrong, but at least they blocked it. Now I hope the boy is strong enough to stand up and say he doesn't want to be cut.
Papai is offline  
Old 01-25-2008, 03:12 PM
 
BamaDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The problem as I see it is that the boy still has to go home and live with his Dad after all this is over. If he stands up in court and says "No, I don't want to get circumcised" and his circumcision gets blocked, that could make life at home very difficult for him for the next six years or so.

On the other hand, if he wavers and says a circumcision would be okay then his Dad would probably be a lot easier to live with until the boy can get out on his own...at the expense of the boy's foreskin and body integrity, of course.

Basically, the boy is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
BamaDude is offline  
Old 01-25-2008, 03:55 PM
 
perspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
We also conclude that the decision to circumcise a male child is one that generally falls within a custodial parent's authority, unfettered by a noncustodial parent's concerns or beliefs -- medical, religious or otherwise.
Thats the part that made me really angry. Just the way its said, "the decision to circumcise a male" it just makes it sound like (and is saying) that a male has no legal right to all his body. Its also saying, but a female does. So its like the judge is right out saying male children have less rights over their bodies, and thats perfectly fine. Its really showing that their is less respect for his body then say if it was his hypothetical twin sister in the court room.
perspective is offline  
Old 01-25-2008, 04:04 PM
 
Papai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The court is talking out of both sides of its mouth. On the one hand it re-affirms the right of parents to circumcise their boys without their consent, but then they block the circumcision because the father failed to prove that the boy wanted the procedure done. So which is it? Do parents have the right to circumcise their sons without their consent or not? This didn't clarify anything, just muddied the waters.
Papai is offline  
Old 01-25-2008, 04:08 PM
 
BunnySlippers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fluffierville
Posts: 2,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
so they have acknowledged that circumcision is invasive and unnecesary, but hey if the parents want it done, why not?

How about taking away that 'right' to let parents make the decision to circumcise since so many still dont get that it is invasive and unnecessary?


That poor child, what a thing to have to worry about.

Decluttering 500/2010
BunnySlippers is offline  
Old 01-25-2008, 04:12 PM
 
glongley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 1,031
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Here is the wording of the remand order. It says that if the boy does not want to be circumcised, that the father's custody rights may be revisited or altered.

"We remand the case to the trial court with instructions to resolve the factual issue whether M agrees or objects to the circumcision. In order to resolve that question, the trial court may choose to determine M's state of mind utilizing means available to it under the relevant provisions of ORS 107.425. (9) If the trial court finds that M agrees to be circumcised, the court shall enter an order denying mother's motions. If, however, the trial court finds that M opposes the circumcision, it must then determine whether M's opposition to the circumcision will affect father's ability to properly care for M. And, if necessary, the trial court then can determine whether it is in M's best interests to retain the existing custody arrangement, whether other conditions should be imposed on father's continued custody of M, or change custody from father to mother.

"The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The supplemental judgment of the circuit court is reversed. The case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings."

Gillian
glongley is offline  
Old 01-25-2008, 04:23 PM
 
BunnySlippers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fluffierville
Posts: 2,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
In response, father, joined by amicus curiae American Jewish Congress, American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, and Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (collectively, AJC), argues that the trial court did not need to hold an evidentiary hearing, because M's attitude about whether he wants the circumcision is not legally significant. Father asserts that a child is not the decision-maker on such questions, any more than an infant who is circumcised. If the legislature had wanted a male child to have a say in whether he is circumcised, he contends, it could have adopted a statute to that effect, as it has done in other statutes such as ORS 109.610 (giving minors the right to consent to treatment for venereal disease without parental consent). Father also contends that the health risks associated with male circumcision are de minimus. In any case, father maintains that the affidavits he supplied to the trial court demonstrate that M does want to be circumcised.

Finally, father and AJC argue that father has a constitutionally protected right to circumcise his son. They maintain that American Jews must be free to practice circumcision because it is and has been one of the most fundamental and sacred parts of the Jewish tradition. Father concludes that, if this court requires the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing, we would usurp the role of the custodial parent and violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Do they not see how wrong all of this is?!?!
Why can we see it but they can't!

Decluttering 500/2010
BunnySlippers is offline  
Old 01-25-2008, 04:28 PM
 
BunnySlippers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fluffierville
Posts: 2,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
and if the father wins the child is circumcised. Wanna bet the father wins?

GAH! If he gets circ'd, then the mother eventually wins custody and wants the foreskin back what then? You can't replace it.

Decluttering 500/2010
BunnySlippers is offline  
Old 01-25-2008, 04:38 PM
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 31,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This is excellent news that they are requiring the solicitation of the childs opinion.

and I found this really interesting

Quote:
If, however, the trial court finds that M opposes the circumcision, it must then determine whether M's opposition to the circumcision will affect father's ability to properly care for M. And, if necessary, the trial court then can determine whether it is in M's best interests to retain the existing custody arrangement, whether other conditions should be imposed on father's continued custody of M, or change custody from father to mother.

What kind of parent is willing to go to court to force their 12 year old to have his genitals mutilated? Seriously.
Arduinna is offline  
Old 01-25-2008, 05:04 PM
 
perspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If I was this boy, I would probably just run away. Honestly, its horrible that we live in a country where this could happen. Where this boy who probably sits up at night worrying if he can keep his full body. Its just disgusting.
perspective is offline  
Old 01-25-2008, 11:33 PM
 
blsilva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: California
Posts: 2,031
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by perspective View Post
Thats the part that made me really angry. Just the way its said, "the decision to circumcise a male" it just makes it sound like (and is saying) that a male has no legal right to all his body. Its also saying, but a female does. So its like the judge is right out saying male children have less rights over their bodies, and thats perfectly fine. Its really showing that their is less respect for his body then say if it was his hypothetical twin sister in the court room.
ITA

I am overjoyed that it has been blocked for now, and that they are acknowledging that the boy's wishes have some importance, but the way they worded it, it really does give boys absolutely no rights over their own bodies.

Homeschooling mom of 2 rambunctious, loving, spectacular boys, wife to an incredible man who has been my best friend on this journey <3

 

 

blsilva is offline  
Old 01-26-2008, 11:14 AM
 
kxsiven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,429
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
kxsiven is offline  
Old 01-26-2008, 12:05 PM
 
Lisa85's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 982
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Have you all even considered that it's possible the boy DOES want to be circ'd? You just assume he doesn't? Don't get me wrong, I'm not for circing personally. I'm against circing infants because they don't have a say, but I'm also against assuming another person automatically does or doesn't want something simply because I believe it's not right.
Lisa85 is offline  
Old 01-26-2008, 01:49 PM
 
perspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisa85 View Post
Have you all even considered that it's possible the boy DOES want to be circ'd? You just assume he doesn't? Don't get me wrong, I'm not for circing personally. I'm against circing infants because they don't have a say, but I'm also against assuming another person automatically does or doesn't want something simply because I believe it's not right.
Well, the mother has said that her son came to her and said that he does not want to be circumcised, but that his Dad is pushing it on him, and wants it to happen either way. The Dad seems like a kind of pushy person, so its not surprising he would do this.

The real issue here is the fact that legally, children can make choices for themselves. They are not developed enough, or at least according to the law. Thats why sex that between a minor and and adult is illegal. Because children cant always make the right choice for themselves until they themselves are adults.

Yet if you listen to this case, the judges are careful not to force a circumcision, because they know forcing that on someone could really mess with the boy, and is not right. (I cant find the judges quote, although he is careful to limit his statement to "a 12 year old boy")

Basically, they are trying like hell not to confront the fact that if the court thinks its might not be in the boys best interest to be circumcised. It would make the case easier if they did just make that choice. (and if it was a girl in that situation, thats what they would do in a second) but if they say its not in his best interest, why not for a 11 year old, a 10 year old?, a 9, etc all the way to a baby. So they want to resolve the case, but still not admit the truth. So they are doing the very unusual thing and deciding the whole case on what the minor wants. Hoping to dodge a legal bullet.
perspective is offline  
Old 01-26-2008, 05:11 PM
 
BunnySlippers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fluffierville
Posts: 2,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I voted.
Did yo uall read the article to 'cut or not to cut?' I liked it

Decluttering 500/2010
BunnySlippers is offline  
Old 01-26-2008, 07:08 PM
 
Mommiska's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by perspective View Post
...if you listen to this case, the judges are careful not to force a circumcision, because they know forcing that on someone could really mess with the boy, and is not right. (I cant find the judges quote, although he is careful to limit his statement to "a 12 year old boy")

Basically, they are trying like hell not to confront the fact that if the court thinks its might not be in the boys best interest to be circumcised. It would make the case easier if they did just make that choice. (and if it was a girl in that situation, thats what they would do in a second) but if they say its not in his best interest, why not for a 11 year old, a 10 year old?, a 9, etc all the way to a baby. So they want to resolve the case, but still not admit the truth. So they are doing the very unusual thing and deciding the whole case on what the minor wants. Hoping to dodge a legal bullet.
Absolutely right.

The judges know that it is 100% wrong to cut the genitals of a 12 year old child, who can express his disagreement.

And they realise full well that if they acknowledge that in their legal judgement, they are opening the flood gates for the eventual abolition of male infant circumcision.

Because, as Perspective says, if it's wrong to cut a 12 year old without his consent, then it's wrong to cut an 11 year old, 10 year old, 9 year old - all the way back to a baby.

Yes - it is blindingly obvious that cutting up a non-consenting infant's genitals is horrendously, heart-breakingly wrong.

But a lot of these judges have probably done it to their own kids. And they all have friends and family who have done it. And of course, there is the issue of the religions that demand that it is done.

No one wants to touch the ethics of it, because when you do, you can't fail to see that American parents are, over and over again, mutilating their children and depriving them of their basic human right to their own body.

So, so sad. (and infuriating).
Mommiska is offline  
Old 01-26-2008, 09:40 PM
 
Lisa85's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 982
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Yes - it is blindingly obvious that cutting up a non-consenting infant's genitals is horrendously, heart-breakingly wrong.
Actually, it isn't to everyone unfortunately.
Lisa85 is offline  
Old 01-27-2008, 12:48 AM
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 31,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mommiska View Post
No one wants to touch the ethics of it, because when you do, you can't fail to see that American parents are, over and over again, mutilating their children and depriving them of their basic human right to their own body.

So, so sad. (and infuriating).
Exactly.
Arduinna is offline  
Old 01-27-2008, 10:18 PM
 
Mommiska's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisa85 View Post
Actually, it isn't to everyone unfortunately.
I see what you mean, but I do think that the Oregon case points out what should be obvious to any thinking person.

And I think that's why the judges won't touch the ethical questions raised here. Because if they do, they have to admit that it's morally wrong to cut up a protesting 12 year old boy (female 'circumcision' in Africa, anyone?).

And once you admit that ethically, the boy himself is the person who should decide whether or not his penis gets cut up, that points out that - hey, whatever the age, the boy in question will eventually have an opinion about whether or not he wants to be cut - so he's the one who should make that decision for himself.

What I was trying to say is that this case, when you actually start thinking it through to its logical conclusion, makes it obvious that the 'parental choice' line is crap, ethically speaking.

Which is, again, why the judges won't touch the ethics of what that father is trying to do. :
Mommiska is offline  
Old 01-28-2008, 01:08 AM
 
tammyswanson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Soutwestern Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 1,481
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kxsiven View Post
I notice many people said that it's wrong to circumcise ANY boy (just like it's wrong to circ any girl) So far it's 47 percent...

Circ doesn't work! Stop the violence of circumcison. Had another UP/UC/HB in August!
tammyswanson is offline  
Old 01-28-2008, 03:06 AM
 
fruitful womb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Fort Worth TX
Posts: 2,111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm not so sure this is a good thing. I'm trying to be optimistic. I really am. Its just that...

The lower courts were already siding with the father. The Supreme Court didn't want blood on their hands so they bump them back to the lower courts where the father has more support for his wishes.

I believe if the child is going to have a say in this, he should he heard when he is 18. At the age of legal consent. Until then, let him keep all his body parts. I'm pretty sure that by the time he turns 18 no one can talk about forcing surgery on him.

Since he is going to be heard, I'm praying he won't be intimidated by his father and does something he might regret for the rest of his life.

I feel so sorry for that kid. Man oh man, this has to be already traumatizing to him. I can't imagine whats going on in his mind right now.
fruitful womb is offline  
Old 01-28-2008, 03:43 AM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,314
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)


That poor kid. In his place, I'd be terrified.

And that little carefully-worded document is vomitingly ridiculous.

If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is online now  
Old 01-28-2008, 12:40 PM
 
phatchristy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Controlled chaos...
Posts: 9,037
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitful womb View Post
I believe if the child is going to have a say in this, he should he heard when he is 18. At the age of legal consent. Until then, let him keep all his body parts. I'm pretty sure that by the time he turns 18 no one can talk about forcing surgery on him.
That is what they did in that other case. That boy was spared until he could make his own decision at 18.

Perpetually breastfeeding or pregnant ENFP mom to a lot of kids...wife to a midwestern nice guy...living in tropical paradise...pink cats and homebirths rock!

phatchristy is offline  
Old 01-28-2008, 05:50 PM
 
fruitful womb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Fort Worth TX
Posts: 2,111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by phatchristy View Post
That is what they did in that other case. That boy was spared until he could make his own decision at 18.
Wow, thats interesting. I've never heard about this case. Where may I find the record of this case? Thank you for bring this to our attention! Could it possibly help the Boldt v. Boldt case?
fruitful womb is offline  
Old 01-29-2008, 11:56 PM
 
mamajake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Philly suburbs
Posts: 890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
:

J.D. and mother to three. Sustainable Mothering and check out my Writing and Speaking
Follow me on Facebook and Twitter.
mamajake is offline  
Old 01-30-2008, 12:04 AM
 
Fellow Traveler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Formerly JWhispers
Posts: 1,842
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitful womb View Post
Wow, thats interesting. I've never heard about this case. Where may I find the record of this case? Thank you for bring this to our attention! Could it possibly help the Boldt v. Boldt case?
I think they are talking about the Schmidt vs. Niznik, Cook County Illinois, NO. 00 D 18272 (2006). From the DOC Amicus Brief for the Misha Case:

"A custodial mother, having remarried to a Jewish man, claimed an obviously trivial medical justification to support the circumcision of her nine-year-old son, apparently to accommodate the comfort of her new spouse. The intact (not circumcised) gentile father, from non-circumcising Europe, interposed an objection. Weighing the evidence as too slight to require medical intervention, and declining to rule on the religious issue, Judge Kaplan enjoined the circumcision until the child reaches 18 and could choose for himself."
Fellow Traveler is offline  
Old 01-30-2008, 03:46 AM
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 31,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks for sharing that, but OMG wtf is wrong with that mother? She was seriously going to mutilate her 9 year old to make her new husband happy? Good thing that child had an active involved father to stand in a protect his son. at the mom.
Arduinna is offline  
Old 01-30-2008, 04:21 PM
 
fruitful womb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Fort Worth TX
Posts: 2,111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwhispers View Post
I think they are talking about the Schmidt vs. Niznik, Cook County Illinois, NO. 00 D 18272 (2006). From the DOC Amicus Brief for the Misha Case:

"A custodial mother, having remarried to a Jewish man, claimed an obviously trivial medical justification to support the circumcision of her nine-year-old son, apparently to accommodate the comfort of her new spouse. The intact (not circumcised) gentile father, from non-circumcising Europe, interposed an objection. Weighing the evidence as too slight to require medical intervention, and declining to rule on the religious issue, Judge Kaplan enjoined the circumcision until the child reaches 18 and could choose for himself."
Thank you for sharing this information. I wonder if perhaps a new Judge could be requested in the case. I'm not that knowledgeable about how the system works but I've heard of Lawyers pulling strings to replace jury members.

This Judge would be a good one to handle this case since he has dealt with this before. He is clearly in favor of genital integrity.
fruitful womb is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off