A couple weeks ago, a landmark decision was made by judge in the Chicago-land area; concerning a 9 year old boy and the court battle that ensued over a late decision to have the boy circumcised. For those of you not familiar with the story, a Polish couple in Chicago-land got divorced and when the mother remarried (to a Jewish man incidentally), she decided to have her then 7 year old boy circumcised due to what she claimed to be reoccurring infections and irritation. The father (who reportedly rarely paid child support), decided to take the boy’s mother and step-father to court to stop it. The biological father was adamantly opposed to the procedure, based on his personal faith.

From the Chicago Sun Times:

A 9-year-old suburban boy will not be circumcised as his mother wishes, a judge ruled Tuesday — a victory for the child’s father, who called the procedure “not necessary.”
Cook County Circuit Judge Jordan Kaplan said he was unconvinced by experts for the mother who maintained that circumcision would help stem the boy’s recurring irritation and infections.

“My child is the most important thing to me. But it’s absolutely not necessary,” said the father, a 50-year-old apartment manager from Arlington Heights.

The boy wound up being fearful of the procedure after his father showed him graphic pictures of the circumcisions. My guess is that many of the pictures were not of the hospital variety, but rather grotesque images of torture and pain.

It came out in court that the mother also wanted her son to look like the step-father and the boy’s step-brother, both of whom are circumcised. The problem is, we don’t know how this information was stated and how a clever plantiff’s attorney could get her to admit that regardless of whether that was her sole intention or not.

A Chicago Judge ruled several weeks ago that he had not seen sufficient evidence to allow the mother to move forward with the procedure, rendering the deadbeat dad and the anti-circumcision activists nationwide - victors.

Now, being the mother of two boys, one of whom is circumcised and other who is not, I made the decisions based on the information I had at the time and what I felt was in the best interest of my sons (at the time). I think I have a fairly unbiased opinion on the subject, given that I have experienced both decisions and what concerns me here is that it seems nobody in this child’s family truly cared about how a court battle over his penis would affect him for the rest of his life. Both parents in this case appear to have acted selfishly and out of revenge.

Another thing that bothers me is that the Judge didn’t acknowledge that there are very real advantages to circumcision, like reduced risk of HIV or STDs, penile cancer and infection and some reasons it is immediately medically necessary. I don’t know if those are compelling enough reasons to have a boy circumcised, but they are real none-the-less and anti-circ’s just refuse to concede the point. I wouldn’t begrudge parents who decided to have their son circumcised for those reasons. Of course, there are just as many reasons not to circ an infant son (or an older boy for that matter) in this day and age, as Peter Mackey in Cutting Away the Truth suggests.

On the subject of circumcision, I think this is one area where both sides beliefs ought to be respected and that there really isn’t a definitive right or wrong. I’m not even saying this Judge was right or wrong, only that nobody really wins in this case just for the shear fact that it was played out in court. We can only speculate as to whether the mother or the father truly had the child’s best interests at heart.

Poor kid.

Bookmark to: