Father Wants 8 Yr Old Son Circumcised, Mother Objects

Noomi

Ninja Kicker
Jul 6, 2012
18,121
4,006
255
Australia
This is interesting. Both mother and father are said to be loving parents, but they disagree on this one issue, which is likely to end up in court. The father came from Iraq in 1999 and began a six year relationship with the boys mother. Now he has decided that he wishes his son be circumcised, presumably because of his religious beliefs:

A MAN considering having his eight-year-old son circumcised has been warned he may face a courtroom fight.

A judge has ordered he give his former partner six weeks' notice of any plan to send the boy for the operation.

The Family Court allowed the mother, 45, liberty to appear again if she wanted a court order to stop it.

Justice Ian Loughnan said the mother should be given adequate time to consider her position and intervene with the father or the court.

"Whatever might be said about the practice at birth, it's not an insignificant procedure for an eight-year-old boy," he said.

The judgment did not contain details of why the father, 37, wanted the procedure done.

The father came to Australia from Iraq in 1999 before beginning a six-year relationship with the boy's mother.

Justice Loughnan said both were loving parents but the mistrust between them made it impossible for them to communicate.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/father-wants-eight-year-old-son-to-be-circumcised/story-e6frf7kx-1226423927943

What should happen? If an issue like this comes up, which parent wins the fight? Either way, you go against the wishes of one parent - and should a judge be the person to decide which parent to side with?
 
This is interesting. Both mother and father are said to be loving parents, but they disagree on this one issue, which is likely to end up in court. The father came from Iraq in 1999 and began a six year relationship with the boys mother. Now he has decided that he wishes his son be circumcised, presumably because of his religious beliefs:

A MAN considering having his eight-year-old son circumcised has been warned he may face a courtroom fight.

A judge has ordered he give his former partner six weeks' notice of any plan to send the boy for the operation.

The Family Court allowed the mother, 45, liberty to appear again if she wanted a court order to stop it.

Justice Ian Loughnan said the mother should be given adequate time to consider her position and intervene with the father or the court.

"Whatever might be said about the practice at birth, it's not an insignificant procedure for an eight-year-old boy," he said.

The judgment did not contain details of why the father, 37, wanted the procedure done.

The father came to Australia from Iraq in 1999 before beginning a six-year relationship with the boy's mother.

Justice Loughnan said both were loving parents but the mistrust between them made it impossible for them to communicate.

Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun

What should happen? If an issue like this comes up, which parent wins the fight? Either way, you go against the wishes of one parent - and should a judge be the person to decide which parent to side with?


The court should always err on the side of NOT ritually mutilating the genitals of a minor child.
 
This is interesting. Both mother and father are said to be loving parents, but they disagree on this one issue, which is likely to end up in court. The father came from Iraq in 1999 and began a six year relationship with the boys mother. Now he has decided that he wishes his son be circumcised, presumably because of his religious beliefs:

A MAN considering having his eight-year-old son circumcised has been warned he may face a courtroom fight.

A judge has ordered he give his former partner six weeks' notice of any plan to send the boy for the operation.

The Family Court allowed the mother, 45, liberty to appear again if she wanted a court order to stop it.

Justice Ian Loughnan said the mother should be given adequate time to consider her position and intervene with the father or the court.

"Whatever might be said about the practice at birth, it's not an insignificant procedure for an eight-year-old boy," he said.

The judgment did not contain details of why the father, 37, wanted the procedure done.

The father came to Australia from Iraq in 1999 before beginning a six-year relationship with the boy's mother.

Justice Loughnan said both were loving parents but the mistrust between them made it impossible for them to communicate.

Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun

What should happen? If an issue like this comes up, which parent wins the fight? Either way, you go against the wishes of one parent - and should a judge be the person to decide which parent to side with?

The Court should appoint an attorney to represent the minor, and the minor ought to be heard by the court. Since the procedure is permanent I'd be inclined to continue the matter until the minor was of an age to properly decide, age 16 seems appropriate.
 
This is interesting. Both mother and father are said to be loving parents, but they disagree on this one issue, which is likely to end up in court. The father came from Iraq in 1999 and began a six year relationship with the boys mother. Now he has decided that he wishes his son be circumcised, presumably because of his religious beliefs:

A MAN considering having his eight-year-old son circumcised has been warned he may face a courtroom fight.

A judge has ordered he give his former partner six weeks' notice of any plan to send the boy for the operation.

The Family Court allowed the mother, 45, liberty to appear again if she wanted a court order to stop it.

Justice Ian Loughnan said the mother should be given adequate time to consider her position and intervene with the father or the court.

"Whatever might be said about the practice at birth, it's not an insignificant procedure for an eight-year-old boy," he said.

The judgment did not contain details of why the father, 37, wanted the procedure done.

The father came to Australia from Iraq in 1999 before beginning a six-year relationship with the boy's mother.

Justice Loughnan said both were loving parents but the mistrust between them made it impossible for them to communicate.

Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun

What should happen? If an issue like this comes up, which parent wins the fight? Either way, you go against the wishes of one parent - and should a judge be the person to decide which parent to side with?


The court should always err on the side of NOT ritually mutilating the genitals of a minor child.

What about parents who pierce the ears of their week old babies? Should a judge decide if a parent can subject their child to this?
Granted, ear piercing isn't permanent and you can remove the earrings and let the holes close over, but it would cause pain in such a small child.

I just question whether your opinion regarding this would be the same as the opinion you hold on the subject of circumcision?
 
This is interesting. Both mother and father are said to be loving parents, but they disagree on this one issue, which is likely to end up in court. The father came from Iraq in 1999 and began a six year relationship with the boys mother. Now he has decided that he wishes his son be circumcised, presumably because of his religious beliefs:


Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun

What should happen? If an issue like this comes up, which parent wins the fight? Either way, you go against the wishes of one parent - and should a judge be the person to decide which parent to side with?


The court should always err on the side of NOT ritually mutilating the genitals of a minor child.

What about parents who pierce the ears of their week old babies? Should a judge decide if a parent can subject their child to this?
Granted, ear piercing isn't permanent and you can remove the earrings and let the holes close over, but it would cause pain in such a small child.

I just question whether your opinion regarding this would be the same as the opinion you hold on the subject of circumcision?
Piercing ears is in no way comparable to circumcision. Did you watch the video of a circumcision?
 
The court should always err on the side of NOT ritually mutilating the genitals of a minor child.

What about parents who pierce the ears of their week old babies? Should a judge decide if a parent can subject their child to this?
Granted, ear piercing isn't permanent and you can remove the earrings and let the holes close over, but it would cause pain in such a small child.

I just question whether your opinion regarding this would be the same as the opinion you hold on the subject of circumcision?
Piercing ears is in no way comparable to circumcision. Did you watch the video of a circumcision?

I never said it was comparable, but in both cases, pain is caused to the child, hence my question.

I have watched one video of a circumcision, and while it looked extremely painful, I doubt the child would have suffered emotionally for it. As I said in another thread, I believe the child should be put to sleep before the procedure, and given adequate pain relief afterward.
 
How come they are fighting concerning getting the little fellas pencil sharpened? Ignore the religious implications and focus on how much better it is for the little guys long term health.
 
How come they are fighting concerning getting the little fellas pencil sharpened? Ignore the religious implications and focus on how much better it is for the little guys long term health.

I guess that is the problem. The mother believes it is better not to circumcise him yet the father believes that circumcision is more beneficial. Who do you believe? More importantly, who will the judge believe?
 
How come they are fighting concerning getting the little fellas pencil sharpened? Ignore the religious implications and focus on how much better it is for the little guys long term health.

Tell us how his long term health would be better. Would you agree we should remove appendices at birth? It certainly would have saved me a lot of pain later.
 
What about parents who pierce the ears of their week old babies? Should a judge decide if a parent can subject their child to this?
Granted, ear piercing isn't permanent and you can remove the earrings and let the holes close over, but it would cause pain in such a small child.

I just question whether your opinion regarding this would be the same as the opinion you hold on the subject of circumcision?
Piercing ears is in no way comparable to circumcision. Did you watch the video of a circumcision?

I never said it was comparable, but in both cases, pain is caused to the child, hence my question.

I have watched one video of a circumcision, and while it looked extremely painful, I doubt the child would have suffered emotionally for it. As I said in another thread, I believe the child should be put to sleep before the procedure, and given adequate pain relief afterward.


Sedation of infants is much more risky, that's why it is avoided when possible.
 
This is interesting. Both mother and father are said to be loving parents, but they disagree on this one issue, which is likely to end up in court. The father came from Iraq in 1999 and began a six year relationship with the boys mother. Now he has decided that he wishes his son be circumcised, presumably because of his religious beliefs:

A MAN considering having his eight-year-old son circumcised has been warned he may face a courtroom fight.

A judge has ordered he give his former partner six weeks' notice of any plan to send the boy for the operation.

The Family Court allowed the mother, 45, liberty to appear again if she wanted a court order to stop it.

Justice Ian Loughnan said the mother should be given adequate time to consider her position and intervene with the father or the court.

"Whatever might be said about the practice at birth, it's not an insignificant procedure for an eight-year-old boy," he said.

The judgment did not contain details of why the father, 37, wanted the procedure done.

The father came to Australia from Iraq in 1999 before beginning a six-year relationship with the boy's mother.

Justice Loughnan said both were loving parents but the mistrust between them made it impossible for them to communicate.

Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun

What should happen? If an issue like this comes up, which parent wins the fight? Either way, you go against the wishes of one parent - and should a judge be the person to decide which parent to side with?

The Court should appoint an attorney to represent the minor, and the minor ought to be heard by the court. Since the procedure is permanent I'd be inclined to continue the matter until the minor was of an age to properly decide, age 16 seems appropriate.

How about Americans mind their own fucking business about the legal system of other countries?

It's an Australian case, let them decide what their legal requirements are.
 
Jesus H........people are crazy everydamnwhere.
I never understood the circumcision shit......I know what a penis looks like when IT'S NOT circumsized, and it's a limp oscar, and it's not real pretty. You can't tell much difference when the penis is hard tho.

My boys were clipped right after birth and it hurt me to hear them scream in pain......and they were newborns. I would definitely hate to hear a 8 year old going thru such a thing~
 
This is interesting. Both mother and father are said to be loving parents, but they disagree on this one issue, which is likely to end up in court. The father came from Iraq in 1999 and began a six year relationship with the boys mother. Now he has decided that he wishes his son be circumcised, presumably because of his religious beliefs:


Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun

What should happen? If an issue like this comes up, which parent wins the fight? Either way, you go against the wishes of one parent - and should a judge be the person to decide which parent to side with?

The Court should appoint an attorney to represent the minor, and the minor ought to be heard by the court. Since the procedure is permanent I'd be inclined to continue the matter until the minor was of an age to properly decide, age 16 seems appropriate.

How about Americans mind their own fucking business about the legal system of other countries?

It's an Australian case, let them decide what their legal requirements are.


Do you feel the same about FGM?
 
Jews hate it when gentiles get circumcised. Hell, Jews just hate gentiles.

The custodial parent should have the decision.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top