by Arnt Rune Flekstad
In an attempt to avoid the circumcision of her 4 year old son, Heather Hironimus of West Boynton has fled with the child and has therefore not met the demands set by Circuit Judge Jeffrey Gillen. The case is based on a contract the mother and father, Dennis Nebus, where both agreed to perform a circumcision on their son, Chase. The father stated that he has not seen his son since Feb. 19th. “I will allow her to avoid incarceration or get out of jail if she signs the consent to the procedure,” Gillen told attorney Thomas Hunker, who claims he doesn’t know where his client is.
The mother decided to not comply with the original contract. The basis for this change of heart was that she did not want to submit her son to the pain and potential suffering the irreversible procedure would inflict upon him. The case has become a symbol for activist in support of criminalizing the procedure – who have been demonstrating outside the courthouse.
Circumcision as a practice has become more and more controversial in recent years. 58 percent of all males in the US are circumcised, based on numbers from the CDC. Although this is quite a large number it has steadily gone down from 64.5 percent in 32 years and is still declining.
RELATED: “I think the male circumcision is worse than an incision of the girl.” -Ayaan Hirsi Ali
The activists challenging the legality of the procedure claims that parents don’t have the right to inflict a child with what they call “sexual mutilation” and compares this to removing a finger. New studies also show a large number of children have complications and pain for months after the procedure is done. It can result in lessened sensitivity and a circumcised man is 4.53 times more likely to use erectile dysfunction drugs. Numbers published in the journal Thymos show that more than 100 newborn baby boys die as a result of circumcision and circumcision complications.
Marilyn Minos, founder of the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers, remembers her first experience with the procedure:
We students filed into the newborn nursery to find a baby strapped spread-eagle to a plastic board on a counter top across the room. He was struggling against his restraints–tugging, whimpering, and then crying helplessly…I stroked his little head and spoke softly to him. He began to relax and was momentarily quiet. The silence was soon broken by a piercing scream—the baby’s reaction to having his foreskin pinched and crushed as the doctor attached the clamp to his penis. The shriek intensified when the doctor inserted an instrument between the foreskin and the glans (head of penis), tearing the two structures apart. The baby started shaking his head back and forth—the only part of his body free to move—as the doctor used another clamp to crush the foreskin lengthwise, which he then cut. This made the opening of the foreskin large enough to insert a circumcision instrument, the device used to protect the glans from being severed during the surgery. The baby began to gasp and choke, breathless from his shrill continuous screams… During the next stage of the surgery, the doctor crushed the foreskin against the circumcision instrument and then, finally, amputated it.
Thomas Jefferson once said “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.” How far would you be willing to go to protect your child against irreversible painful abuse? I’m calling this abuse since the child itself has no saying in the matter and no possible way to understand what is happening. And it also asks the question, why can’t this procedure be done when the boy is old enough to make up his own mind?
[RELATED: Should we ban male and female circumcision. PODCAST]
To the ones frowning upon the notion of calling this abuse. Let us then ask the question: would you accept an action like this be done against a grown man against his will? And if not, why is it acceptable to submit a small child to this violent procedure? Many makes excuses claiming it is better to have this done in sterile hospitals under supervision than in the hidden. But that argument can be stretched to the absurd – should one also accept rape to happen in safe surroundings instead of criminalizing and punishing the guilty part?
This would most likely be thought of as a stupid comparison. And yes, at some levels it might be. But the core of the problem with such and attitude remains. So if you are a true believer and supporter of individual rights and the right to not have violence being used against peaceful people – how can you support an archaic, unnecessary and very painful act against small children? The right of religion ends with the individual. Even though your beliefs tells you otherwise – your religion is a personal one. Your rights ends where other’s rights begin.
11 comments