Family Issues

Arrest Warrant Issued for Florida Mom Who Refuses to Get Son Circumcised

What's the state's interest in this boy's foreskin?

|

San Diego Shooter/Flickr

Can the state of Florida force a mother to have her 4-year-old son circumcised? It seems so. Last Friday, a Palm Beach County judge told Heather Hironimus to get the boy the circumcision or be jailed. Hironimus refused, hiding out with him in a domestic violence shelter. When they failed to show up for a scheduled court appearance Tuesday, Circuit Judge Jeffrey Dana Gillen signed a warrant for Hironimus' arrest

What's the state's interest in this boy's foreskin? Hironimus and the boy's father, Dennis Nebus, were never married but share custody of their son. In 2012, they signed a "parenting plan" which specified that he would be circumcised, and Nebus would make the arrangements. But Hironimus later backed out of this part of the plan, and Nebus took her to court. 

In Judge Gillen's initial ruling, he found that Hironimus "willfully violated" the parenting plan by refusing to sign the circumcision consent form, which he ordered her to do. A state appellate court upheld the ruling in December. On Friday, Judge Gillen declared Hironimus in contempt of court for continuing to violate the order.

"I will allow her to avoid incarceration or get out of jail if she signs the consent to the procedure," Gillen said.

The parenting plan Hironimus and Nebus agreed to was a formal agreement approved by the court, which makes Hironimus legally bound to follow it. On the one hand, that seems fair—this whole kerfuffle is simply a contract issue. Although as a friend commented on Facebook, it "probably unavoidably implicates the question whether we want legally enforceable contracts to cut children's genitals." Touché. 

Under Florida law, parents must draft a parenting plan "in all cases involving time-sharing with minor child(ren), even when time-sharing is not in dispute." But the plan goes quite beyond time-sharing concerns, requiring parents to seek state approval on everything from "who will be responsible for any and all forms of health care and school-related matters" to "the methods and technologies that the parents will use to communicate with children." Perhaps the better question is why we want mandatory, legally enforceable contracts for most of these matters? 

According to the Sun-Sentinel, neither of the parents' positions on circumcision comes from religion. Nebus told the court last year that circumcision is "just the normal thing to do," but he didn't start pressing Hironimus about the procedure until 2013, when the boy began peeing on his leg. Nemus says his son has phimosis, which prevents retraction of the foreskin; Hironimus says no such diagnosis has been made.

In an emergency motion filed last week, Hironimus' lawyer wrote that the 4-year-old "is aware of what is happening and is terrified by the procedure." The motion asked that a mental health professional evaluate the boy and an independent guardian be appointed to represent the boy's interests in court.

Advertisement

NEXT: "Fascinating": Anti-Abortion Idaho Pol Says He Knew That Vagina & Stomach Aren't Connected

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. In an emergency motion filed last week, Hironimus’ lawyer wrote that the 4-year-old “is aware of what is happening and is terrified by the procedure.”

    I’m with him.

    1. Why was it delayed until 4? Most circs are done in infancy. Side note: I did anesthesia for a 82 year old man’s circumcision last week. My opinion is, if you are going to do it, do it before you can form memories.

      1. Before you grow attached to it?

      2. Yes, do it before the kid gets old enough to object.

        1. Weren’t you arguing 15 year old girls aren’t old enough to make informed decisions yesterday?

          1. Your sarcasm detector is broken.

      3. I did anesthesia for a 82 year old man’s circumcision last week. My opinion is, if you are going to do it, do it before you can form memories.

        What about after you’re no longer able to form memories?

        1. That would also be a good time. This particular gentleman’s memory was intact.

          1. So after the procedure the memory would still be intact…..

      4. May I point out that if the dude was involved at the birth of the child, a circ would have been appropriate. Deciding to have it done, after the child was two years of age, would seem to show that mom was uninformed, as to the reasons for not doing it, and could have signed under duress.? Just the thoughts of a non-lawyer, who did the procedure on an as needed basis.

        The situation demands that the child’s response to the procedure, mentally, as well as physically, should be most important. I would never do it on a non-infant, for anything other than medical reasons.

    2. This is a fascinating case. Can the state compel people to make decisions on their (the state’s) timetable? It brings up some interesting issues. For example, what if she had started to practice a religion that practices/forbids circumcision in the interim. Has she signed away her right to practice religion as she chooses? Or what if scientific research has shed new light on the procedure. Is she still bound to the contract even in the face of new facts?

      1. If you can get out of a contract because you changed your religion, that would pretty much destroy contract law, wouldn’t it?

        1. Hush, Zeb. The religious would never game the system for special rights.

        2. This has nothing to do with contracts. Not a lawyer, but I’ve worked in the family courts. Most likely the parenting plan becomes part of the court order in response to a custody petition. So she isn’t breaching a contract, she’s violating a court order.

          1. From the article:

            Under Florida law, parents must draft a parenting plan “in all cases involving time-sharing with minor child(ren), even when time-sharing is not in dispute.”

            1. Under Florida law, parents must draft a parenting plan “in all cases involving time-sharing with minor child(ren), even when time-sharing is not in dispute.”

              1. The parenting plan is “approved” by the court. The only way a court can approve anything is via an order.

                1. That’s just semantics. First you say “in response to a custody order”, but then argue that since the court is involved (as mandated by the state) it becomes a “court order” (implying a greater authority than contract law), even though it was the state that compelled the contract in the first place.

                  1. Apologies. I said in response to a custody petition because I was defaulting to my state’s rules. And approved/ordered is not semantics. Anything that is settled or agreed upon or approved or decided by a family court has to be ordered by that court. That’s just how it works. If the court doesn’t order it, they would have no jurisdiction to enforce it. Then it would be a matter of contract law which family courts have no jurisdiction over. That would be handled in a court of claims, I think.
                    All that being said, Family court is possibly the most irrational institution your will ever find. Yes the state is compelling the agreement in the first place. Yes there is greater authority than contract law because the only way for a court to approve anything is to make it part of a decision and order, even if it is a settlement, which is what this circumstance seems to be. This is the way it works. I’m not defending it. I’m simply trying to explain it. FYI I’ve been an financial expert witness in divorce matters, and my wife is a court attorney in family court. I don’t have all the facts of this case, and I’m not familiar with the specifics of FL law, but I am very familiar with how family courts generally operate.

        3. No, because it’s the compulsion by the state that makes it problematic.

          1. To elaborate a bit… one element of contract law is that in order to be valid, it cannot have been made under duress. Does the state’s compulsion constitute duress? Also, a required element of contract law is “consideration”. This is an extreme over-simplification, but consideration means that each party to the contract has to “get” something from the contract. But if the state compels the contract, then the consideration (for one or both parties) may be the desire to not break the law. But if the state is not a party to the contract, then that does not constitute consideration. That also seems like duress to me, particularly when you consider time, i.e., both parties might have opted to delay a formal contractual agreement when all of the relevant facts (whatever those may be) were clearer. Hope that makes sense.

            1. See my comment below, but this is not a contract. It’s a court order. Think of it along the lines of a settlement, because that’s what it is. The bigger issue is why are the courts forcing individuals to settle matters that aren’t in dispute at that moment? They are doing it so they have jurisdiction and enforcement power.

              1. Are all your arguments circular?

                Yes, I agree with you about what the bigger issue is. It’s also the one I was bringing up. 🙂

          2. I don’t disagree that the compulsion to come up with a plan is distasteful. I’m assuming they require it in an effort to provide stability for the child from the earliest possible moment and limit future custody disputes that would take up the court’s time, but I’m just guessing. I don’t necessarily agree with doing things this way, but there is a “state’s interest” (I hate that this term even exists) in both of those things.
            If you are rendering to the state compelling her to go through with the circumcision, the state has to enforce its own order. Even though the parenting plan is agreed to by the parties like a contract, the court has to order it in order to have jurisdiction over enforcement,otherwise why would they even be involved?

            1. Rendering should read referring.

            2. But the “state’s interest” doesn’t trump the first amendment as explicitly stated in the fourteenth amendment. Their good intentions don’t matter.

              1. I don’t know enough constitutional law to be able to form an educated opinion on this, but my gut reaction is you are probably correct. The problem is, it would need to be litigated on constitutional grounds which is a very expensive prospect. Unfortunately, I suspect that the individuals that find themselves in this predicament don’t have a whole lot of discretionary funds laying around for such an endeavor. You don’t end up in family court if you have money. So unconstitutional rules and laws are rarely challenged, because those affected by them don’t have the resources to challenge them.

                1. Sure, practicality probably dictates a lot of what you say, but I’m more interested in ideas than any resolution of this specific case. It is Reason magazine, after all. 🙂

                  Thanks for the debate!

            3. “…the state has to enforce its own order.”

              No, it doesn’t. It can ammend the order and decide the child does not need to be circumcised, or can decide on his won when he is a legal adult. The state has no right to forcibly mutilate a child for no medically necessary reason.

              1. Yes it does. That’s how the courts work. To change the order, one of the parties would have to appeal, and/or show that there was a significant “change in circumstance” (legal definition) to amend the original order.
                The state isn’t forcibly mutilating the child. I have no opinion on circumcision. Currently, the medical community accepts it. The court is forcing an individual to comply with a court order that they agreed to in the first place to subject their child to a common medical procedure. It’s not the medical procedure itself that the courts care about. It’s complying with the court order.
                If the mother was not complying with the visitation schedule in the parenting plan, the court would be taking the exact same actions, and the mother would have to follow the exact same procedures to amend the original order.

          3. the government over involvement in the daily lives of its citizens is the huge problem here. The government dictates the terms of almost everthing we do – from our personal relationships to our hygenic choices.

            Like most things that the government does, it does “relationship mediation” very poorly. This should be a civil matter not a criminal one. It shouldn’t be a crime to change your mind on whether your child should undergo an elective and largely cosmetic procedure.

            1. It is contempt of court. The parenting plan is part of a decision and order. The mother is not complying with the order. The mother could have gone back to court and appealed the original decision. She did not. This is the result you get when you ignore a court order.

  2. *sits down, grabs popcorn*

  3. We have competing parents’ medical wishes here. Yet both parents agreed to the procedure and now one is backing out on the agreement. Seems (removes glasses) clear cut to me. (Yeeeaaaaaahhhhh!!!!)

    1. CUT IT OFF….I MEAN OUT!

      1. But we’ve only reached the tip of a huge length of possible puns and parodies. It’s like you want to cut it off just to discourage more lewd behavior.

    2. It’s unnecessary treatment and as such, deference should be given to doing nothing.

      1. Why not give deference to what was agreed to?

        1. Why not give deference to the owner of the genitals that people are so interested in seeing cut.

          1. How about we let the boy decide about this elective cosmetic surgery when he is 18?

            1. Well, the dad is claiming there is some medical reason for the procedure. I am not a doctor so I don’t know about penises.

      2. Deference should be given to the contract that was agreed to.

        1. But it’s not really a contract. It’s a “parenting plan” that the court signed off on. It doesn’t make sense to enforce it like a court would enforce a contract because the court’s role in a breach of contract case is to put the non-breaching party in the same position he would have been in had the contract not been breached. What are the dad’s damages here?

        2. No, you are wrong, No one and least of all the state, has a right to subject a third party to a contract they did not agree to, especially an unnecessary medical procedure involving mutilation.

    3. Nemus says his son has phimosis, which prevents retraction of the foreskin; Hironimus says no such diagnosis has been made.

      Seems like there may also be a question of whether the procedure may be medically necessary or not. Although there are other treatments besides circumsision (not including link to wikipedia page because it’s not NSFW, look it up yourself if you’re curious and not at work).

      1. Does that double negative mean that it is safe for work? Screw it, I’m going to chance it…

        1. Should have left off the the “not” before NSFW. Grammar fail. Oh well, I tried to give a trigger warning…

      2. Seems like there may also be a question of whether the procedure may be medically necessary or not.

        As long as we’re not talking about removing the organ entirely, IMO, it’s parent A wanting the kid’s ears pierced or a branding/tribal tattoo and parent B (as well as the kid) protesting.

        If we were talking about a tail nubbin’ or an 11th toe, nobody would be crowing about how elective the surgery is.

        1. True, and as I pointed out above, there’s other options for treating phimosis besides full circumcision, so I don’t think the father has a leg to stand as far as medical necessity, but he seems to be trying to argue that.

          This is the kind of thing that the parents and the child should work out between themselves, and not have to involve the state, but it sounds like the state of FL forces parents to create these “parenting plans” that have to include absurd shit like this and involve the state in what should be a strictly private matter.

          1. So the real problem is the state wants its cut if you want to become a parent.

        2. And, of course, all this chit-chat about medical blah blah is beside the point. She agreed, then tried to change the deal. Seeing as she’s not a Sith Lord, this is what happens next.

          1. This. It’s just getting the anti-circumcision camel’s nose under the tent.

      3. I’ve heard of phimosis causing problems when one is older, but never with plain old urination. Sounds like a parental grudge match to me. That boy will be picking his father’s nursing home…or not.

        1. The foreskin isn’t supposed to retract when you are young. I remember only being able to do it from age 5 onwards, a quick Google search shows the average age is even later than that.

          1. I have seen one that would not, during my surgical practice. Mine retracted as long as I can remember. Where would one pick up such strange information. Anatomically, it should retract at any age.

      4. Phimosis can not be diagnosed until after puberty, and even then, there are much better ways to treat it than chopping off the entire foreskin.

        All male infants are phimotic at birth because their foreskin is fused to the glans the same way your fingernails are fused to your nail beds. Normal retraction isn’t possible until anywhere from 2 years to puberty or, in rare cases, later.

    4. She willfully violated the agreement, with malice aforeskin.

  4. On the one hand, that seems fair?this whole kerfuffle is simply a contract issue.

    The state enforcing a contract to which the affected party never agreed? How about printing govt bonds on discarded foreskins so we can see Spooner go full Zombie apocalypse.

  5. My reading says she did agree, but then later changed her mind. Wouldn’t she need to amend the contract with agreement from the other parent?

    Poor kid would be fine if she hadn’t delayed this.

    1. FINE? YOU CALL GENITAL MUTILATION FINE??? But yeah, you’re probably right.

      1. It’s not genital mutilation. Lest we start advancing that line to include ear and navel mutilation and eventually defending the natural sanctity of hair and nails against any unwanted encroachment on their natural growth and beauty.

        1. It is very much genital mutilation. Period. Your not liking that characterization doesn’t change anything.

          Hair and nails? Seriously? Dishonest conflation much?

          1. Your not liking that characterization doesn’t change anything.

            True enough. My disliking the mischaracterization doesn’t make it any less a mischaracterization.

            As I point out above, we don’t wait until the child is of the age of consent to mutilate a vestigial tail or superfluous digit. We wouldn’t call getting a little girl’s ears pierced mutilation either. We don’t happen to call this mutilation with any regard because mutilation carries either some notion of aesthetic desecration and/or functionally-destructive violence.

            If he’s using mutilation the way we would commonly say a barber butchered a haircut, I understand. But, I get the distinct impression that I’m not starting the pile of dishonest conflation as much as (trying to prevent) adding to it.

            1. “We don’t happen to call this mutilation with any regard because mutilation carries either some notion of aesthetic desecration and/or functionally-destructive violence.”

              There are a lot of nerve endings in those tissues.

              Functionally speaking, having them lopped off could diminish this human being’s capacity to experience physical pleasure later in life.

              1. There are a lot of nerve endings in those tissues.

                No there aren’t. It’s specific biological function is *not* to have them. Certainly there are more and more dense nerve endings than the skin of your back or the soles of your feet, but not any more dense that the rest of the penis or similarly sensitive skin like the back of the hand. Studies to correlate this have been fraught with misidentification (Meissner’s Corpuscles) and repeatedly found completely normal (uncircumcized) individuals who were entirely without expected bundles. The only consistency was that the foreskin was one of the least dense locations and that nothing as dense or as specialized as the tongue, clitoris, or glans exists in the foreskin.

                However, there is no argument against *could* except to say that overriding Rights that do exist to protect something that *could* happen is the standard is-ought fallacy. Foreskin *could* have greater sensitivity, ergo we should ignore contract law and void some parents of (more of) their rights? It seems like plenty of libertarians like to play the ‘FYTW’ card too.

                1. I guess then it comes down to anecdotal evidence. Maybe I’m a freak of nature, but I’d sure miss those extra nerve endings.

                  1. Jews have been circumcising for 4000 years. If it really had a deleterious effect you think the Jews would still be around?

                    1. Just because something’s been done a long time and people survived it doesn’t make it right or mean it doesn’t cause harm.

        2. So if I held you down and circumcised you right now, it would no big deal?

          1. I see what you did there.

          2. So if I held you down and circumcised you right now, it would no big deal?

            If you woke up tomorrow to discover your nipples were pierced without your knowledge (i.e. consent or not), would you consider them mutilated?

            Ever been, or known anyone, with a general disposition of waking up with a new tattoo? Mutilated?

            1. The removal of the foreskin cannot be corrected as readily as those to things, and maybe not at all.

              And no, I don’t think an infant should be subjected to piercings or tattooing either.

              1. The removal of the foreskin cannot be corrected as readily as those to things, and maybe not at all.

                Given that we can give an adult woman a foreskin, I’m going to discount the ‘maybe not at all’ portion of this statement.

                Then it becomes a matter of degree, to which braces, tonsils/adenoids, etc., typically applied to or removed from unwilling kids (rather than infants) stand as direct evidence against your notions of how the state should ‘allow’ parents to handle their kids.

                1. In your example, a grown woman is not exactly given more nerve endings, they are just moved from somewhere to somewhere else.

                  In the case of circumcision, they are completely removed.

                  Ask someone with diabetic neuropathy if they miss the capacity to feel their finger tips, or if it’s no big deal.

                2. I gave mine more than just the foreskin this morning.

          3. It’s a big deal cause you’re the one performing it SF.

            Now if Warty is doing the holding, it’s a completely different story.

  6. Wait, what? Why on Earth are they requiring circumcision, especially to this extent?

    1. Obviously, it’s a SoCon cabal.

      1. Sure it’s not the Jews and the Muslims, working to undermine the rest of us and ensuring that we can’t time travel back to Nazi Germany to kill Hitler?

        1. Do you need a foreskin to travel back in time?

    2. Because both parents initially agreed to it. I don’t think the state cares one way or another about circumcision.

  7. This sounds more like status law than like contract law. If it were a mere matter of contract law, the usual arguments against specific performance would apply, such as unconscionability, hardship, and personal service.

  8. Why don’t they let the four year old decide if he wants to keep his foreskin or not?

    Given that there is no religious issue here, and no medical necessity, and no unforeseeable long term consequences, I see no reason why the four year old’s arbitrary decision shouldn’t be controlling.

    This isn’t (really) different from letting a four year old decide which color pajamas he wants to wear to bed.

    Have both parents explain their positions, and then let the four year old choose.

    1. “Cool! I want a Spider Man foreskin!”

      1. I’d be happy to have mine back.

        period

        1. Ditto. But I’d prefer a Batman one if they carry it.

    2. No child is going to choose to go under the knife. In fact, the number of men at any age who would willingly have their dick sliced I think would have to be a tiny percentage.

      While it’s well known that my own penis is perfectly shaped and pleasing to the eye, personally I always wished I wasn’t circumcised.

      1. Yes, well, if no child old enough to consciously understand the process would voluntarily choose it that tells you something, doesn’t it?

        1. There is a reason these sick monkeys nip the little fuckers as infants. No resistance…

          Christ, that is just goddamn morbid.

          1. Thank you, AC.

        2. It would be a much larger wound if done later on.That might have some affect on it.

        3. Yes, well, if no child old enough to consciously understand the process would voluntarily choose it that tells you something, doesn’t it?

          Aren’t you the one who was defending a 14-yr.-old girl as being too easily manipulated by a 21-yr.-old moron?

          No child old enough to consciously understand the process would voluntarily choose it… unless you promised them an XBox One or threatened to take their cellphone away, spank them, and/or never let them see their other parent again.

          1. Fucking men who are way older than you can have serious long-term life consequences. Unlike not getting your foreskin nipped.

            1. Sounds like we are in agreement that circumcision isn’t some emotionally crippling life-destroying activity.

              I don’t have all the stats, but I’m pretty sure the overwhelming majority of sexual encounters of fertile couples (14 or otherwise) aren’t serious and/or don’t carry long-term life consequences. Especially in today’s society.

      2. You’re full of glans and odd bits… Imgur your tool for review. We can use stars or something.

        1. Do they display the Mona Lisa for free? Hell, no. Crack open your wallets first.

          1. An enigmatic penis could be jarring. I need to ponder this first.

            1. It will still be smiling when you decide. Take your time.

    3. “Why don’t they let the four year old decide if he wants to keep his foreskin or not?”

      For the same reason we don’t let them decide whether they get blood tests, inoculations, take a bath, go to school, go to bed, or have to eat their vegetables.

      1. As I said ” given that there is no religious issue here, and no medical necessity, and no unforeseeable long term consequences” .

        Cutting off a foreskin is a medically irrelevant act with no discernable benefits, unlike blood tests, inoculations, bathing, going to school, sleeping, and eating vegetables.

        if you can find one medical reason why boys ought to be circumcised, sure, you don’t let a four year old decide. But given that THERE IS NO SUCH REASON, there’s no fucking good reason why the four year old shouldn’t get to decide.,

        1. That is the only argument that should matter. There is no rational refutation of this argument. Well said, Hazel.

        2. Cutting off a foreskin is a medically irrelevant act with no discernable benefits, unlike blood tests, inoculations, bathing, going to school, sleeping, and eating vegetables.

          If I had to choose between circumcision and public schooling, which one fit the definition of the word ‘mutilation’ more generally or frequently, I think public schooling wins, hands down.

          Flu shots are a medically irrelevant act that we all force our kids to do. I’m certain that there are at least a dozen medically irrelevant decisions that I’ve made as a parent that most all of us would loathe the state scrutinizing.

          Should I wait until tonsilitis to have my kids’ tonsils mutilated or can that decision stay between myself, my wife, and our pediatrician?

          1. My parents put braces on me against my will. I hadn’t considered it mutilation because I didn’t really know better at the time (and the tooth growing out of my jaw well below the gumline seemed odd). Entirely elective, extremely protracted and painful, not to mention corrosive to parts of my social life.

            Those. assholes.

          2. I would hope you don’t have a doctor that electively removes tonsils without other problems presenting first. If you do, that’s one shady doctor.

            1. I would hope you don’t have a doctor that electively removes tonsils without other problems presenting first. If you do, that’s one shady doctor.

              Did your med school teach you to trash talk other doctors and offer medical advice with near zero patient hisotry or did you pick that up on your own?

              Look, it’s pretty clear you’re on the ‘interventionist asshole’ side of this discussion, the more relevant question at this point is; Should we seek you out for all of our legally-binding professional medical opinions or just when you’re offering them up so brilliantly on the forums of Reason?

              1. It seems like you’re cool with it regardless of what conflation you create.

                I don’t think one needs med school to know that removing healthy body parts without other problems presenting first is a bad idea, m’kay?

                Would you have your kid’s healthy appendix removed if you and your family doctor thought it was a good idea- without any other reason? What about pulling all the teeth and getting high quality implants? Double mastectomy to prevent potential cancers- for a little girl?

                I’m not claiming to have legally binding professional medical opinions- all I said was that a doctor who would do that is shady- and a parent who would do that is a moron. (I didn’t say that last part, but now I did.)

                1. I don’t think one needs med school to know that removing healthy body parts without other problems presenting first is a bad idea, m’kay?

                  I’m not claiming to have legally binding professional medical opinions- all I said was that a doctor who would do that is shady- and a parent who would do that is a moron.

                  Odd that you would widely grant such profound wisdom and medical knowledge to both medical professionals and the layman alike with one side of your brain and then widely dash any passing medical familiarity or common sense to the same said people with the next.

                  It’s almost like you don’t have a legitimate leg to stand on in either case and you’re just injecting/pontificating about your unique non-medical, non-legal moral sensibility. Thanks for your contribution I’ll see what you’re up to at the next anti-juvenile appendix mutilation march.

                  1. Your “argument” is nonsense. One can say, “I’m not a lawyer, but any lawyer who advises you to knowingly purger yourself is shady” without saying they don’t have a leg to stand on.

                    Your defensiveness and lack of reason on this subject is astounding.

                    1. sorry, perjure…

                    2. Your defensiveness and lack of reason on this subject is astounding.

                      You’re right. The proper response ill-educated, ill-informed, and irrelevant medical and legal advice is to ignore it.

                      Unfortunately, WRT to parents and their children, you wouldn’t seem to tolerate that.

                    3. I never gave medical or legal advice. How moronic. I don’t think, ever, that I advocated legal force against such unnecessary medical procedures.

                      However, I would like to offer you some advice, actually. You should learn how to follow a premise to its logical conclusion. You should learn not to falsely equate 2 different things, or to misrepresent another’s argument. If you follow this advice it will take you far.

                    4. If you follow this advice it will take you far.

                      Circumcized far or uncircumcized far? Because I’m of the distinct notion that your concept of far is considerably shorter than the lengths I deal with on a daily basis.

                      Any false equations you make are purely your own.

        3. “Cutting off a foreskin is a medically irrelevant act with no discernable benefits’

          Just because benefits are subjective and qualitative–doesn’t mean there aren’t benefits.

          Just because the benefits maybe aren’t very important to you–or you don’t think they should be important to other people?

          That doesn’t mean they aren’t benefits either.

          P.S. No one is qualified to make qualitative choices on behalf of other sane adults, and that’s why I want to make choices for myself rather than have them made for me by politicians. That is why I am a libertarian.

          1. and qualitative and subjective benefits that come at the hands on an irreversible procedure without consent shouldn’t be done to ANYONE.

            1. Not sure about that.

              Do you think cleft lips should be fixed–or should the child have to wait until he’s 18?

              It’s mostly a cosmetic thing, but I’ve heard it goes much better for everybody if they fix it when they’re babies.

              1. I think there are probably quantitative and objective benefits to fixing a cleft palate. In addition, you are citing a birth defect and equating it to body modification.

                1. I’m saying that making qualitative choices for children isn’t entirely unprecedented.

                  Some people might even think it’s part of a parent’s job.

                  And if evolution has taught us anything, it’s that parents tend to be pretty good at making choices for their children.

                  Some of those choices have to do with socialization, fitting in, etc.

                  There may be quantitative benefits to being circumcised, too. Like I said, social anxiety over being different might contribute to…who knows what, quantitatively speaking. And I can’t think of anybody who is better equipped to make those choices for children than their parents.

                  My point to Hazel was that even if they were subjective and qualitative benefits, that doesn’t mean they aren’t benefits. I wasn’t relinquishing the claim that there are quantitative benefits, too. There very well may be. But there’s no need to go that far. Parents are perfectly justified in making choices for their children simply on qualitative grounds.

                  1. So, you’d be cool with head flattening? Foot binding? Surely not, but those had value too and those choices were made by their parents and are now (rightfully) seen as barbaric.

                    Why not for qualitative grounds on the earlobes, or myriad of other stand ins that are unacceptable because 40+% of the population isn’t already doing it. If they were would that make it ok? No.

                    There is no rational argument to be made for an infant circumcision that isn’t medically necessary.

                    However, I’m not advocating the government should outlaw it- i think people should be shamed into stopping the barbaric practice. (I do, however, think a case could be made to outlaw it, but I’m not the one making that case.) I think it’s a horrible practice that serves no purpose. (and the argument about anxiety over being different is bullshit and it sets a horrible precedent. “It’s better to have surgery to fit in than it is to be who you are naturally, son.”)

                    1. There is no rational argument to be made for an infant circumcision that isn’t medically necessary.

                      But… but… vaccinations!

                      Circumcision may result in fewer UTI’s, lower incidence of STD, including HIV, transmission, lower risk of cervical cancer in partners, lower risk of penis cancer, etc. So, if it is irresponsible to not vaccinate, isn’t equally irresponsible to not circumcise? After all, circumcision is sorta like a vaccination against UTI’s and cancers…

                    2. Almost all of those studies are false, or at least unrepresentative for the average American child.

                    3. “may” = “doesn’t”

                      Point of fact – the circumcision happy United States has a higher rate of every STD (including HIV) than European countries where circumcision is barely heard of. BTW, those African studies claiming a 60% reduction in HIV? That’s a relative risk and only applies to female- to-male transmission – one of the rarest transmission vectors, with a rate of 0.4%

                      Cervical cancer is caused by HPV, not foreskin.

                      Penile cancer is so rare that men have a greater risk of breast cancer. It’s also more closely related to lifestyle choices like smoking. Additionally, when penis cancer forms on an intact male, it usually forms on the foreskin. The fix? Remove the foreskin. On a circumcised male, it usually forms along the scar line. I think you see where that’s going…

      2. What reason is that?

    4. Hazel…..Nah. The Mom has access to the kid more than the Dad most likely. The Mom has already gotten the kid all worked up. He is frightened. Why? Who has been frightening him?

      This is part of their plan, and as such it is a contract of sorts. The plan should stand. Probably 3/4 of the things on the plan are arbitrary, but that doesn’t mean the kid should decide after the parents work on him for awhile.

  9. An abortion story and a circumcision story in the same morning? Waiting for the gay marriage story next so you can complete the trifecta.

    1. …aaaaaand the racist college kids story du jour

      1. I see no difference between those racist college kids and Adam Lanza.

        1. I pointed out in one of the earlier OU racist frat boy threads when someone made a similar joke that some of them might end up in the military after being expelled, at which point they will be like Chris Kyle, and therefore no different than Adam Lanza. /Sheldon Richman “logic”

          1. exquisite

            *applauds*

    2. Waiting for the gay marriage story next so you can complete the trifecta.

      And then a deep dish pizza story so we can complete the… wait, I had something for this… quadroon?

    3. We need some Mexicans, stat!

      1. And some weed and ass sex!

  10. *weeps for humanity…pops MOAR POPCORN*

  11. Alright fellas. Cut or uncut?

    Cut.

    Do the ladies have a preference?

    1. Uncut. The foreskin sliding back and forth cuts down on unpleasant friction and increases pleasant friction. Unfortunately my husband is cut, and there’s nothing I can do. Just another reason to hate my MIL.

      1. Is your husband bothered by it, too? He can look into foreskin restoration. He won’t get the nerves back, but he can regain the gliding motion, and his glans will soften and become more sensitive.

    2. I actually don’t have a preference – I like both cut and uncut – and my preference as a woman isn’t the important point anyway, because no child should ever be subject to body modification because of the preferences of the gender he or she is most likely to be attracted to much later. If that’s something important to him, he can always elect to have the modification done when he’s an adult. Just like you wouldn’t give a baby girl genital surgery just to give her an appearance men are somewhat more likely to prefer – those surgeries are only done when there’s a medical need. If she wants labioplasty or whatever for aesthetic reasons she can choose it when she grows up. Likewise, male circumcision when not medically necessary should be an adult elective procedure, not something done to children.

      1. Well said.

    3. prefer the natural state

  12. Thanks dad

  13. “According to the Sun-Sentinel, neither of the parents’ positions on circumcision comes from religion.”

    That’s important.

    Seems to me like this shouldn’t really be a contract issue either. If the father wants to circumcise the kid when the father has physical custody, then he should probably be free to do that–unless the contract says he can’t. Since the contract says the kid can be circumcised…

    I guess this has been an issue between the father and the mother since the day the child was born. Otherwise, why wait four years?! The father may have offered a custody arrangement that favored the mother on the condition of circumcision–because he could.

    I don’t know what to do about this legally, but if it isn’t a religious issue and a) the mother cares that much about not doing it and b) the father simply refuses to do it when he has the kid on weekends or whatever, then doesn’t that it follow that the father is just being a genuine a-hole?

    1. ” If the father wants to circumcise the kid when the father has physical custody, then he should probably be free to do that”

      this is a horrible argument. What if he wants to tattoo the kid or cut off his earlobes? If it’s not prohibited by the contract should he be able to do it when he has custody?

      1. Does he have a contractual agreement with the mother and filed with the state that establishes the right to tattoo the kid? Even if the mother didn’t or couldn’t sue for a tattoo that was in the custody agreement, I’d think the government would go after an artist that tattooed a 4 year old.

        And, anyway, I don’t believe the government considers circumcision as being necessarily harmful like cutting off a child’s earlobes is so obviously. You cut off a child’s earlobes, and you should go to prison for a long time.

        You think cutting off a foreskin is like cutting of a child’s earlobes?

        Good for you.

        The law doesn’t.

        1. My point is the law is arbitrary. Why would it not treat earlobes and foreskin the same (beside the fact that foreskin serves more a purpose and earlobes are literally useless bodyparts).

          “You cut off a child’s earlobes, and you should go to prison for a long time.”

          Why is THIS not ok, but cutting off part of their genitals isn’t? I don’t understand why you’re drawing the line at earlobes.

          1. … and earlobes are literally useless bodyparts).

            Is that a serious assertion?

            See how good your hearing is, especially directional hearing, without your earlobes…

            1. Seriously? Many people have earlobes that directly attach to their head. You think chopping off the hanging part on those without that will affect their hearing? The folds and the assymmetrical location of them is what makes hearing work, not the earlobes.

    2. I’ve been following this case for a while, but have not seen the actual parenting agreement. From what I’ve read, it called for the father to arrange for it and pay for it, but did not specifically state that it had to be done. The agreement was signed in 2011. The dad didn’t follow through with it. By 2013, the mother had researched circumcision and began to be vehemently opposed to it and vocal about it. The dad then filed a lawsuit to force her to circumcise the kid. This isn’t really anything to do with contracts or court orders, it’s about a dad being a complete prick who wants to take out his anger at his wife on his son’s penis.

  14. I have no skin in this game, but it sounds like she backed out of a contract. I do feel for the kid though. Family courts are just awful.

    1. I saw what you did there.

    2. I have no skin in this game

      *narrows gaze ala Swiss Servator* Really…? You just had to go there, didn’t you.

  15. The society of citizens would be lost without their overbearing laws and courts, but Jesus fucking Christ, let the kid alone decide what happens to his dickhead when he’s able to make intelligence decisions. No court anywhere should be enforcing details like this. This judge should be savagely pilloried.

    1. let the kid alone decide what happens to his dickhead when he’s able to make intelligence decisions

      Agreed. And it might not hurt to find a couple grandparents to live with until then.

    2. I liked the San Fransisco model. Circumcision is banned for all children, but after the age of 18 it becomes mandatory. This plan will ensure a generation learns pure unbridled hatred for the state.

      1. Like mad casual said down below, that San Francisco ordinance was pure culture war shit–just like the Happy Meal ban.

        That all happened in the wake of the initiative banning gay marriage passing in California. It blew the gay rights’ movement’s mind that they couldn’t beat an initiative banning gay marriage at the polls–in California. Especially using the initiative process which is what progressive politics are supposed to be all about.

        Suddenly, the City of San Francisco had to pass every ordinance they could think of giving a hard time to “breeders”, which is basically a slur for heterosexuals and families.

  16. “Hironimus refused, hiding out with him in a domestic violence shelter.”

    Honestly? That may not be entirely irrelevant.

    1. Is the father never allowed to have physical custody of the child according to the custody arrangement?

      …for some reason.

      1. I don’t disagree with this point. But, why talk about the details of the situation and the laws and liberty as they apply when you can (hypocritically) impugn a few traditionalists and deists.

        Forget it, Ken. It’s culture war!

  17. And yet people want to accuse libertarians of viewing children as property.

  18. My Body, My Self – For Boys

    Me? Yeah, they sawed of my willy hood when I was a baby.

    Knew you’d want to know.

  19. I mean, come on, Jordan, you haven’t let me make one decision about our son. Which is why, by the way, you’ll be doing the answering when he asks why daddy’s wee-wee doesn’t have a turtleneck on it like his.

    — Dr. Perry Cox

  20. Tell the kid the foreskin fairy will leave him a tin of smegma under his pillow.

    1. Almost threw up in my office.

    2. Two uses of the term smegma in one comment section. Only on H&R…

      1. I drew the smegma card this past weekend playing Cards Against Humanity.

  21. My cousin’s mother was cheap. So she circumcised my cousin at home rather than pay the doctor. But the pinking shears were the closest thing at hand. So now he has a frilly dilly.

    1. That would be an adorable cock rather than manly I suppose.

    2. That’s just a cover story for his venereal warts.

  22. Someone explain to me how unnecessary circumcision (i.e., not done to correct phimosis or similar conditions) isn’t a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. I don’t get it.

    1. Pre-law, pre-med, what’s the difference?

    2. I don’t think the Hypocratic oath is legally binding, so they can just say fuck it. You could ask the same question about a lot of plastic surgery.

      I really don’t see it as harmful, though. Maybe that’s just what I tell myself so I can live with my mutilated ding-dong. But it seems to work well enough.

      1. I don’t see how a doctor, having said the Hippocratic Oath, could even consider abortion one way or the other, let alone perform one.

        The oath is, in no way, legally binding. It’s meant for QC and/or union/purity test purposes.

      2. Want to know the difference? Try eating your favorite meal while still numbed up after visiting the dentist.. 😉

    3. It’s just some useless skin around the clitoris, Warty.

      1. The only sensible libertarian position is that the state be involved every single time a parent wants to remove something widely regarded as useless from their children.

        Paragraph 20 of Subsection F of the proposed legislation will clearly dictate the process for the proper allowed removal of baby teeth by parents both licensed and non-medically licensed alike. We’ll have no more of this ‘wiggling it loose for them’ or, Gaia forbid, ‘tying a tooth to the door’ nonsense. The tooth will either fall out, as mother nature intended, otherwise the parents have obviously tortured their children in a manner in violation of the Geneva Convention.

  23. If he wants him circumcised let the child make that choice when he turns 18.

  24. “Perhaps the better question is why we want mandatory, legally enforceable contracts for most of these matters?”

    Let’s not be obtuse. The whole point of contracts is to provide a degree of certainty among the parties for questions that would otherwise likely end up in dispute. For better or worse, parenting preferences and decisions, particularly when the couple is no longer (or never was) married, are highly likely to fall into this strike zone.

    I definitely do question the wisdom and necessity of the parents putting something this specific into the agreement. Why not a more general “medically necessary procedures” clause?

    1. And seeing some of my cousins relationships with the other parent of their kids, these sorts of things end up being in dispute for amazingly petty and vindictive reasons which have nothing to do with the interests of the kid. They are not necessary if the parents are together and get along, but in a world where parents are in separate housrholds they become increasingly necessary.

  25. Giv custody to the father ? problem solvd.

  26. So the libertarian position is that a party to a legally binding agreement has no recourse to the law to enforce the agreement on the other party?

    1. Well, the question is whether such things are properly the subject of a legally binding agreement. So, no. There are some things you can’t put in a legally binding contract.

      1. It is a common procedure which parents often choose for their children. Other than the “ick” factor for some people, I see no reason why this particular decision should be beyond the pale for a parenting agreement.

        1. How about the fact that the child, who ought to be considered a party to the agreement, doesn’t consent to it?

          1. He is four, I doubt he consents to his vaccination shots either.

            1. His vaccinations have proven medical benefits and don’t seriously hamper his sex life.

        2. That’s because you’re an asshole.

    2. The “libertarian” position is that children are property of their parents. You know who else didn’t think children had rights?

      1. Then circumcision for children should be banned? How about ear piercing?

        Children are not property but their parents do have to make responsible choices for them or do you want the government making those choices because you don’t like this one?

        1. Children are not property but their parents do have to make responsible choices for them or do you want the government making those choices because you don’t like this one?

          Oh, have we switched back to abortion?

          1. In what universe is circumcision the the same as putting the kid to death?

            1. So I child has the right to compel the labor of a mother for nine mothers, but not the right to decide the state of his genitals?

              Good luck, kid.

              1. A mother has a right to kill her child but not to decide on a medical procedure for the kid?

                1. It’s not a medical procedure, it’s cosmetic. There is no medical reason to circumcise a child.

      2. Every public school official, plus cops?

      3. It’s not my libertarian position. “Property” is not the right word. Parents have rights to custody of their children that come with certain duties. And children also have certain rights. I actually think kids should have a right to remove themselves from their parents custody.

        1. I agree.

          Anyone capable of articulating a negative right and understanding the implications, regardless of age, should have that right bestowed upon them.

          If you bring a person into the world, or adopt a child or pet, you’re the de-facto custodian of that being. And until they are capable of articulating their own rights, you are on the hook for providing negative rights (and necessary positive rights, like food to sustain the right to life, etc.) to that being.

  27. A couple of points:

    1) Judges really hate it when parents deviate from a custody agreement for any reason whatsoever.

    2) They hate it so much that you’d better have a damn good reason to not drop the kid off – anything less than “dad’s practicing the Moloch” isn’t going to cut it.

    3) Judges hate it when people don’t show up for hearings.

    The mom was signaling that she wasn’t prepared to accept the judge’s order, and judges will use violence to ensure that their orders get carried out, lest they lose their authority ie their ability to impose their will with their rulings.

    The circumcision is actually irrelevant. The judge is looking at this from the perspective of maintaining his power. This could be an argument over haircuts, open heart surgery, preschool choices and the outcome would be the same.

    Mom is risking losing custody entirely at this point, and it’s pretty stupid. She would be better served getting a pediatrician to claim that the circumcision is not needed and show up at court. Dad would be better served getting a pediatrician to claim that the kid had a problem.

    1. “Judges hate it when…”

      The peasants inconvenience them.

  28. The whole issue of circumcision has avoided proper adjudication, I feel. Why should the parents be allowed to authorize a medical procedure that may not be medically necessary (it is at best unclear on the health benefits) on another human being?

    1. I think it is just one of those things that it is best not to involve the state in. Parents need a lot of leeway in how they raise their children, even with things that people might see as harmful to some degree.

      Unfortunately, in cases like this, you can’t avoid it.

  29. Isn’t there a sort of compromise on circumcision where they just prick the foreskin enough to draw a little blood? Why not do that?

    I think circumcision should be left up to parents. Even if you think it is bad, it’s not a fight worth fighting as far as I can see. Just don’t do it to your kids if you don’t want to. But it really should be done early in infancy. A 4 year old is going to know what is going on and probably remember it. once the kid starts talking it’s too late.

    1. Circumcision should be left to the owner of the penis. Seriously, how can you call yourself a libertarian and think otherwise?

  30. Calm down, folks.
    This case has nothing to do with the State forcing a boy to be circumcised. It is about a parenting dispute that was resolved by both parents AGREEING and having that agreement entered as a court order.
    Now one parent has reneged.
    The agreement could have been about selling a boat or refinancing a house. If one party refuses to do what they agreed to do, the court can force them to do so or hold them in contempt.
    Take a deep breath and redirect your outrage to a more worthy target.

    1. Anything to avoid the hard question, eh?

      1. What hard question? Any hard questions about whether or not to circumcise have been answered by the contract.

        1. You can be forced by a contract to do harm to a third party?

          1. I’m not sure children are a third party, exactly.

          2. And the question of “harm” here is, at best, controversial.

            1. elective medical procedure that carries a risk of negative side effects…

              what if the contract was an agreement to remove the earlobes?

              1. It carries some positive side effects, like reduced risk of penile cancer.

                1. the reduce risk of penile cancer it outweighed by the potential complications of the procedure. Numbers wise it doesn’t make sense.

                  1. In your estimation. Why should your judgement overrule every parent who estimatrs the risk otherwise?

                    1. It’s not an estimation. It’s data. Penile cancer effects less than 0.001% of men. The infection rate for circumcisions is estimated to be at 0.5%- with an overall complication rate that’s even higher. So, leave your kid alone and he’s got less than a 1 in 100,000 chance of getting penile cancer, or get him cut and give him a .5% chance he’ll get infected or suffer other complication. (that’s 1 in every 200!)

                      That’s not an estimation. There is greater risk of complication from circumcision than there is of contracting penile cancer.

                    2. It is choice to deal highet risk but lower level of treatment condition then have to face a lower risk but higher level of treatment down the road. Again, who are you to impose your evaluation of the risks on the parents?

                    3. One must factor in that the patient will be an adult and choose his own treatment in the slight chance that he will have cancer- or can choose to circumcise himself later to avoid such dangers.

                      There is a much higher risk of breast cancer. Removing all breast tissue in young girls would be very effective in preventing this risk- but I have yet to see anyone seriously promote such mastectomies be up to the parent to weigh the risks of such a procedure. Of course not, it would be silly to do so.

                      I’m not imposing anything on the parents. I’m for preventing the parents from imposing such a permanent and needless solution to a problem that is most likely not going to exist on their child.

                    4. You do realize there is no functional difference between “preventing” and “imposing”?

                      You want the gobernment to enforce your judgement of risk over the parents judgement with regarcs to their child. Where do you presume that authority?

    2. Oh, but arguing about circumcision is more fun than family law.

      1. Agreed.

    3. You think they’d be as eager to sanction and enforce a contract for female circumcision?

      1. FGM law from 1997 plus 14th Amendment “equal protection” clause means circumcision is already illegal.

  31. This is a straight contract case. She AGREED to circumcise him as part of her custody agreement. She broke the deal.

    In contract cases, the remedy is usually damages unless money can’t substitute for the promised action. Pretty good case here for “specific performance”, IMO, which means a court order. And, if you break a court order, eventually you get to an arrest warrant.

    Now, you can argue about whether the State should arrest people for breaking their contracts (although I would be interested to hear the alternative enforcement mechanism). But give the system we have, this is all pretty routine.

    1. Even if she made that agreement under duress?

      Why is she in a domestic violence shelter?

      Why can’t the father take the kid for a circumcision when he has physical custody for the weekend–or whenever he has physical custody?

      Does the father never get physical custody in the agreement?

      If so, why did the father agree to that?

      Was she ever in fear of physical violence because she refused to circumcise the child in the past?

      If she was, wouldn’t that suggest duress?

      Why is she in a domestic violence shelter?

      1. Red herring. It was a judge approved agreement.

        That is where she ran to. It not evidence of any actual wrongdoing by the father.

        A doctor my not do an elective surgery without botj parents.

        If above, when the father gets custody my not matter.

        Another red herring.

        The father is pursuing her honoring the agreement through the courts. It seems unlikely that he physically threatened her.

        Speculating on the effect ofsomething there is not evidence happened.

        Again, not evidence of anything in itself.

        1. “not evidence of any actual wrongdoing by the father”

          wanting to force circumcision upon a 4 year old SHOULD be considered wrongdoing by the father.

          1. So you want the court to enforce a ban on childhood circumcision which does not exist in law?

            1. no. I want circumcision to be treated the same as any other body modification or elective surgery. DON’T perform them on minors.

              1. But if I can’t tattoo my kids, how will I tell them apart from the orphan slave children?

              2. “No” means “yes” to you huh?

        2. She could contest the validity of the agreement on that basis.

          I don’t know the facts.

          I just have questions.

          1. Questins tbat seem to be skirting libel.

            1. I’m not speculating that she might be in a domestic violence shelter.

              According to the story, she is in a domestic violence shelter.

              That’s a fact.

              I’m just pointing out that we don’t know why.

              I’m also asking why the father can’t use his time with physical custody of the child to get the child circumcised. …especially since we know the agreement says the child will be circumcised.

              These are not red herrings.

              This is not speculation.

              These are pertinent questions to the issue of whether the government should arrest a mother for not circumcising her child.

              1. You were speculating on why she decided to go to a domestic violence and constructing an argument to void the agreement based on that speculation. A speculation that posits the father committed assault at the very least.

                Do not be coy about what you were doing

                1. RC Dean said it was a straight contract case.

                  How many reasons are there that a contract could be invalid?

                  She’s in a domestic violence shelter.

                  In considering what RC Dean said, why ignore what may be a pertinent fact?

                  1. Because, in irself it is not a pertinant fact without spinning a fable about why it is pertinant.

                    1. Because, in irself it is not a pertinant fact without spinning a fable about why it is pertinant.

                      Seriously, STOP IT!

                2. Do not be coy about what you were doing

                  In a thread filled with the words ‘genital mutilation’ I found this statement to be patently hilarious.

                  1. Because you’re happy your parents sliced off the best part of your penis, right?

                    Not everyone is pleased, and you’re a shitty libertarian if you think it’s okay in the slightest to strrap a newborn down, insert a probe to forcibly separate his foreskin from his glans and chop the best part of his penis off.

    2. Can a contract to enforce elective surgery on a minor be upheld- especially if the minor isn’t able to consent?

  32. What if she had sign a contract to abort the child and then reneged on it? Should she have had a court ordered abortion? Should she have given birth in shackles? Would the father be due some compensation?

    1. Let’s try an easier hypothetical. What if the contract was to remove the tonsils of a kid who had never had any tonsil trouble?

      1. or earlobes? or to tattoo his buttock?

        1. How about to remove his big toenails. Ingrown toenails are awful, don’t you want to spare him that?

          1. I know- or his appendix. You could DIE if you have one of those inside you!

          2. How about to remove his big toenails. Ingrown toenails are awful, don’t you want to spare him that?

            I had joint surgery on my big toe as a minor. In pre-op, the podiatrist noticed that I had developed an ingrown toenail and asked (after drugs had been administered) if I would like to have the nail fixed and I agreed.

            I don’t think my parents were present, but do you think the statute of limitations has expired? I thought the guy was just doing me a favor wrt my foot. It didn’t occur to me that I should sue his ass off.

            1. Did he remove your toenail- or just fix the problem?

              1. Did he remove your toenail- or just fix the problem?

                The obviously more important part is that I was a minor, under duress, and he mutilated my toenail.

                The fact that I had largely mangled the nails in an accident (and necessitated the joint surgery) or the fact that he removed about 1/3 of the nail or the fact that that nail in the decades since has never been ingrown are all irrelevant.

                He violated all manner of both law and non-law in an act that you have postulated is, and/or should be, illegal. Delivering on a private contract in a manner not consistent with irrelevant third parties’ wishes, the nerve of that guy. He should be strung up by his… ears.

                1. I think you have a logic problem- mainly one of false equivalency.

                  1. You’re right. When asked, “Did he remove your toenail- or just fix the problem?”

                    The proper answer was that he mutilated it. I thought he would lance/drain it or otherwise open and disinfect. It was a surprise when the bandage came off to discover that he had removed the right 1/3 of the nail and irreversibly and violently damaged the natural beauteousness of my toenail.

                    By every definition, he tricked me into mutilating my toe against my will. Sure, it turned out for the best, but he didn’t know that or tell me. I know, I know, it sounds a lot like simple buyer’s remorse and the stupid shit where college women get drunk and sleep with a guy, then decide he raped them. But this is different, we aren’t talking about just clipping a toenail here… It was digital mutilation.

                    1. It was digital mutilation.

                      digital mutilation?

  33. What difference does it make at this point? Sorry wrong thread.

    1. Isn’t that relevant for EVERY thread?

  34. I’m confused. She entered into a contract with someone and then violated it. This seems like something a libertarian shouldn’t be upset about.

    1. unless the contract is to perform elective surgery on a non consenting party.

    2. Bevause there are a lot of people here who do not like the idea of childhood circumcision and want to ban the practice.

      1. Even when they wholly acknowledge it as nothing more than literally aesthetics one way or the other.

        1. if they acknowledge this they are wrong- this is counter-factual.

          1. Everyone is wrong unless they believe only the facts that you know to be true.

            Wow. Just… wow.

            1. First, that’s not what I said. Second, one who disbelieves facts is, by definition, wrong. Third, facts are known to be true- if they aren’t true they aren’t facts.

              You’re bad at this “reasoning” thing, aren’t you…

              1. First, that’s not what I said.

                You didn’t read what I wrote. If you did, you didn’t understand it. Several posts over.

                Facts are true but what is true isn’t simply a collection of facts. Moreover, just because you hold something out as factual or true does not make it so. Moreover again, you have a paradoxical presumption that truth and facts are all that’s required to explain everything. The Wright Brothers were not wrong to disbelieve the fact humans can’t fly.

                Factually enough; circumcision is not illegal, you’re wrong to think it should be otherwise. Factually enough, circumcision (as practiced in the West) is repeatedly shown to be overwhelmingly harmless.

                If a fanatic like yourself, opposed to circumcision, were presented a method whereby pro-circumcision fanatics considered a child circumcised and you otherwise considered it harmless and/or purely cosmetic, you would still be opposed to the practice. You don’t oppose it because you oppose circumcision. You oppose it because it is a taboo to you and/or other peoples’ traditions, practices, behavior and children should conform to your whims about what is “true” and “just”.

                One way or another, you’d fuck those kids up (not necessarily your kids or all kids) just as bad if not worse than they did but, in your mind, at least *they* wouldn’t have done it *through circumcision*.

                1. You don’t oppose it because you oppose circumcision. You oppose it because it is a taboo to you and/or other peoples’ traditions, practices, behavior and children should conform to your whims about what is “true” and “just”.

                  That’s presuming an awful lot, and you’ve projected those motivations onto everyone in this thread who opposed elective circumcision. There actually are intelligent arguments that can be made on the issue, with thoughtful, relevant analogies to other types of medical procedures, but you haven’t manged to hit on a single one of them. You really should leave the argument to the people who can better represent your position without ascribing sinister motivations to their opponents. There were several already in the thread.

  35. SERIOUSLY Reason?? One of the few things Libertarians want the state to do IS to enforce contracts. Now Reason Magazine looks like a bunch of hypocrites.

    1. Agreed, but in this case the contract is coerced. When you are in a contract you don’t like, you can get out of it or renegotiate terms. Not the case here. They have magically transformed a contract into a court order.

      After all the sophistry is waded through what we are talking about here is a judge forcing someone to cut off the end of a kid’s dick, which is an egregious violation of self ownership. It is barbaric.

      1. You cannot get out of a contract without consequence and renegotiate unless the other party agrees. The other party does not agree in this case, and it is unclear what the consequence would be. Otherwise, these kind of legal binding agreements are not worth the paper they are written on.

        1. so pay daddy off and he can fuck off.

        2. The child is not a signatory to this agreement.

    2. One of the few things Libertarians want the state to do IS to enforce contracts.

      Any contract that imposes an obligation upon the contracting parties to do anything to a third party without his/her consent can’t really be enforcible. Can it?

  36. “……it “probably unavoidably implicates the question whether we want legally enforceable contracts to cut children’s genitals.”

    Yeah. I can’t see any problems coming from this. None at all. This will never involve female genital mutilation.

    Also, points for ‘implicates the question’ instead of the usual misuse of the phrase ‘begs the question’.

    1. This will never involve female genital mutilation.

      I’m confused. When we wake up tomorrow and America has degenerated back to the legal and cultural equivalent of Somalia do we celebrate our freedom or lament the loss of massive bureaucracy?

      Also, how many tears to we shed for all the fallen anti-libertarian non-sequiturs? Do we all start when a woman of equal rights signs a contract saying she’ll circumcise her daughter or during the actual circumcision itself?

      1. How about we just stop hacking at unconsenting people’s genitals? Children are our charges, not our property. They still own themselves. Performing barbaric tribal marking signals on them that cannot be undone is not libertarian even some other parties than the person affected signed a contract.

        And fuck that judge. I will agree that he is right when he consents to let me shave a couple inches off of his pecker.

  37. This man/judge is sick. He has a mental illness known as the sociopath spectrum, or (my term) the tyrant’s high. He’s not even a man. He’s a coward who hides behind his robes while acting thuggish and corrupt. What a perverted piece of filth this judge is. The 4 year old’s own words should be enough to end this sociopathic judge’s attempt to make this kid into state property.

    I’m searching for ways or links that I can do what little I can to support mama Hironimus. If you know some then leave a comment please.

    Hi Reason, and commenters. Long-time reader and lurker, first time poster. This story riled me up enough that I finally spent 120 seconds to make an account.

    1. Welcome to H&R, where logic isn’t nearly as common as fallacies.

    2. Should the four year old’s wishes be honored if he does not want his blood drawn or does want to.be poked with vaccine needles?

      I”m kust wondering how far you wznt to take s kid ability to overrule his parent’s judgement.

      1. Hard to see how cutting part of his dick off at 4 will save his life.

  38. Soooo…What was all that a few weeks ago about Florida being “The Free-est state in the Union”?

  39. You break the rules, you pay the price…its called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, not VICTIM

  40. If this were a Muslim father wanting to circumcise his Muslim daughter and her mother opposed the procedure, would we be having this discussion.

    1. In the US or in Iran?

  41. my co-worker’s mother-in-law makes $73 hourly on the internet . She has been unemployed for 5 months but last month her income was $12184 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read Full Article…….http://www.Jobsyelp.com

  42. well, we sure as shit cannot allow people to think that baby boys deserve bodily integrity the same way baby girls do, or else the Patriarchy would win…..

    -FFM

  43. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do

    http://www.wixjob.com

  44. This sort of bugs me, on Reason’s part. She isn’t being jailed for not allowing circumcision. She and her ex disagreed on whether to circumcise her son, or not. She was using him in an anti-circumcision ad campaign and scaring the kid to pieces. The ex had to go to court to stop her from doing this. The judge commented during the case he can’t find a valid health reason not to circumcise the kid, but wasn’t forcing that on the wife. The wife was hiding the kid from the ex, the kid’s father, and using the kid in an ad campaign, and frightening him.

  45. In yet another episode of “Because Penises are Evil”:

    Sexually mutilate your son, OR ELSE!

    “Hey, are they extending mandatory circumcision to girls too?”

    I laugh when I imagine the the conniption fits and tortured verbal hocus pocus that question would produce.

  46. One might think that this level of attention of a little boys penis by a grown man and the courts is what would warrant jail time. Where is the compelling interest of the state here ?

  47. You Can’t Afford To Miss! A legitimate online earning. Create Wealth From Home! Make Guaranteed Money
    ==== == . http://WWW.MONEYKIN.COM

  48. And all this time I thought the government was supposed to be here to protect us from people who would do us harm, but the judge is pushing for the unnecessary mutilation of an innocent child. Go figure. (The first part of that sentence is actually sarcasm for those who can’t detect it.)

  49. Speaking as a circumcised man, who is the father of both circumcised and uncircumcised sons (our views changed over time), four years old is too late for this. You do it near birth. After that, unless there’s an overriding medical reason, it’s a needlessly traumatic experience.

    And if both parents can’t agree, it *definitely* shouldn’t be done. Don’t people have any bloody common sense anymore?

  50. Lot of talk about the contract law aspect of this.

    There are some areas of life in which the state shouldn’t be intruding. Cutting off bits of your child’s penis would seem to me to be one of those areas. A properly limited government would never have subjected such a decision to legally binding contract. “Whoa. That’s beyond the proper purview of state powers!” the mythical non-statist judge would have said.

    Basically, parents, figure out how to work the problem out on your own.

    Using the power of the state in this instance is unjustifiable use of force.

  51. In effect, the states only interest here is enforcing a contract, but it seems to me where the contract involves a third person or party, who is not voluntarily party to the contract, the state cannot enforce physical mutilation of that third party or any type of unnecessary medical procedure.

  52. Florida has always been hostile to the gay community.

  53. Sounds like a questionable court action to me.

  54. my co-worker’s half-sister makes $86 hourly on the internet . She has been without work for five months but last month her pay check was $15863 just working on the internet for a few hours. read this article……….

    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  55. Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month… The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start… This is where to start……===========
    http://www.jobs-check.com

  56. ? Help create a culture where people and organizations cannot take away another person’s liberty and freedom. ?
    It’s pretty simple… if we keep boys & girls intact, we preserve liberty in the act.

    George Orwell’s “1984” is happening

  57. If the child was female and either parent wanted her circumcised while the other objected, would the court put the objector in jail to force the parent to consent to the female circumcision? No! In fact, anyone who did any such circumcision would be guilty of a federal felony per 18 U.S.C ? 116. There are also state laws forbidding the practice. For instance, Official Code of Georgia ? 16-5-27, which classifies any such procedure on a person under the age of 18 as a felony punishable by 5 to 20 years in prison.

    Yet here’s a court forcing a parent to consent to male circumcision for her 4 year old son! It’s a travesty — an egregious miscarriage of so-called justice! And sexual discrimination as well.

    I believe that any circumcision done for any reason other than for some deformity or other serious health issue like a disease is a crime against nature as well. The normal foreskin is not a deformity.

    cth

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.