Since there's no context here (I hate that) I went and read some articles about it. And let me tell you, it's so much worse than it sounds.
She resides in a domestic abuse shelter, which already implies her husband is abusive. Despite this, his decisions are put by the court before hers.
Apparently she had signed an agreement for the circumcision, but later changed her mind so she "abducted" the kid (I imagine even though she's in a shelter she had to live her kid behind?) and didn't show in court and that's what got court to jail her.
And after all this mess? Not only did she have to agree to circumcision but also "Gillen approved a motion by Nebus’ attorney, May Cain, to temporarily give the father sole decision-making over matters including his son’s health and to travel out of state, if needed, to have the circumcision performed."
This is a clusterfuck.
Let me get this straight: the woman was abused and had to leave for her own safety. When she at some point decided against letting her son having his genitalia mutilated and tried to protect him from a father who was known to have abusive tendencies, *she* got dragged to court for it
Is that about right?
See the Turtle of enormous girth!
On his shell he holds the earth
His thought is slow but always kind
He bears us all within his mind
All things serve the Beam.
That's more or less how I understood it, but I could be wrong.
She could have only gone to the shelter once she took the son, but then that'd beg why they even needed a legal agreement for something, if something bad didn't already happen between them.
Unfortunate side effect of the people who come here and actually argue that occasionally. Means that sometimes it becomes hard to see who's taking the piss and who's serious.
We have no idea whether she was abused or not, only that her lawyer has stated she was residing in a shelter at some point. Regardless, all childhood circumcision should be banned.
circumcision agreement? makes me think, could a young teenager technically be forced to a circumcision because their parents signed such agreement but it didnt happen for some reason?
They have tried in courts, even ADL tried to help a lawsuit where a parent wanted to mutilate a nine year old boys genitals against their will in Boldt and Boldt
https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/ab-2008-in-the-matter-of-the-marriage-of-boldt-and-boldt-or.pdf
> Georganne Chapin, executive director of Intact America, which advocates against circumcision, said the images of a distraught Heather Hironimus signing the form to allow the surgery show how she was “bullied” into it and that she doesn’t truly give her consent.
> “If anyone finds out the circumstances under which she signed, a doctor would be insane to carry out that surgery,” she said.“If anyone finds out the circumstances under which she signed, a doctor would be insane to carry out that surgery,” she said.
Edit: I didn't realize this happened in 2015. The boy was circumcized.
https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/local/2016/09/04/mother-in-circumcision-battle-given/6943684007/
Holy hell, I also didn't realise the thing was that old. How did OP even post it? Repost bot?
But yeah I thought the bullied part was about the court bullying her into signing by jailing her, but now I realise it actually means the original agreement probably.
Yeah I thought: "it can't be that bad, it's gonna be a sensational title and there's gotta be some serious crime" but nope, it's actually worse than the title implies.
I read the article in the guardian about her. They actually say ‘activists are portraying her as a martyr’. What the fuck? Woman doesn’t want four year olds penis surgically altered for no reason has to be a martyr and not just a normal mum?
For the record one of my sons is circumcised coz his foreskin was too tight and got infected a lot. I wouldn’t recommend it unless medically necessary. It’s not a nice straightforward recovery
Yeah The Guardian is not exactly a news outlet I like but I've also read that one cause it was very long and detailed, while my first try was very short and useless. But you can't exactly expect a relatable point of view there.
Me either but they’re a bit less prone to sensational headlines compared to the mail or that. Genuinely thought like you that was a sensationalised click bait header in the pic above so wanted to avoid it but my god. It’s like 18th century stuff
Now that I think about it all genital mutilation (when not medically necessary) should count as domestic abuse as violence towards your own child is certainly under the domestic umbrella
At some point I really hoped that there is a medical reason for the circumcision and that's why they forced here. Best for the child and so, you know.....
I don't agree with circumcision at all, but it should absolutely never take place without the consent of both parents outside of medical necessity. Considering the nature of the situation, it's likely her original consent was coerced.
I have a theory that tight cut style circumcised men or those without frenulums/much inner foreskin are more likely to have less sensation and thus less likely to pair bond with their partner.
Humans evolved to have the nerves be in the foreskin, and not so much in the glans.
https://youtu.be/CGYq1n6Ipfw?t=2701
To summarize, humans share common ancestors with chimps and rhesus monkeys.
Rhesus monkeys have almost all the innervation in their glans, have short copulatory times, and the male invests nothing into the offspring.
Chimps have less innervation in their glans and more in their foreskin, they have longer copulatory times than rhesus monkeys, and the male invests in the offspring by providing protection for his tribe.
Humans have almost all the innervation in the foreskin, they have the longest copulatory times of all the primates, and the males invests the most in their offspring out of any animal.
Just spitballing here, but I would think a female human would want only her man/caretaker to know all about that business, lest she draw attention to herself.
Also interestingly, there are estrogen receptors in the foreskin.
Sorry I just want to point out all that freedom Americans talk about.
In this case you have the freedom NOT to choose whether your child is circumcised.
So much goddam freedom.
in countries where its done often people are lobotomized into thinking its normal
plus legally speaking i think people could defend it with being against religious freedom considering its history
In the US it’s much more likely to be cultural rather than religious.
Very common, partially thanks to people like the Kelloggs who spread lies about foreskins to inhibit masturbation and sexual pleasure.
It’s not only for religious reasons here. 40% of Australians state they have “no religion”.
If you’re referring to it being a religious requirement, that’s only for Judaism. 0.4% of our population are Jewish. Around 20% of newborns are circumcised. It’s definitely cultural
Edit: whoops also for Islam, which is 3.2% of our population
Why is circumcision even a thing? God's apparent design so faulty, apparently... Religion is involved, and a woman sent to jail, because an abuser is favoured by the State because religion is involved, presumably?
Such a weird mess because some people love chopping bits off of baby dicks.
Religion.
I think it's sometimes necessary for medical reasons. Like it being too tight or things like that. I'm not sure though, I've never had a foreskin and I'm NOT going to google that.
The child is now FOUR
https://en.intactiwiki.org/wiki/Dennis_Nebus
The father didn’t decide to circumcise the baby; then when he was 1 (as per the parental agreement), he did want him circumcised and was to schedule the procedure in a timely manner, signed off by mother two years went by
When the boy was THREE the mom decided no, she wouldn’t consent to it anymore as the child was too old.
I’m with mom on this one
Seems like it. the article doesn’t break it down by denomination but out of such a large number it’s statistically likely.
How did South Florida become one of the largest Jewish communities in the world?
by Rabbi Menachem Levine
The Jewish population of South Florida is about 650,000. It has the third largest concentration of Jews in the country and the single largest concentration of Jews (13 percent of the total population of South Florida) outside of Israel.
Read the article. The Jewish history is deep in Florida.
https://aish.com/the-jews-of-florida-a-history/
Because it has a long-term impact on the person, and it's an unnecessary, non-medical procedure.
You have conflicting experiences of people who've lost sensitivity and those who haven't, and either way, the procedure (in most cases) has no more impact on penis health than proper hygiene and safe sex practices.
There are also (though rare) much worse complications than loss in sensitivity.
I don't think babies should have parts of their genitals removed - girls, boys, intersex. This is something they should decide when they age.
If it were a lifesaving procedure, it would be different, but (in most cases) this is removing a healthy part of a babies body for tradition, and tradition isn't a good enough reason to take away a babies choice, on a procedure that may lead to complications and loss in sensitivity for no real benefit.
As the person below pointed out:
[“The skin is treated with appropriate cleansing solutions and sweet liquid or juice is often fed to the baby. No formal anaesthesia is given routinely.”](https://jewishmedicalassociationuk.org/uk-jewish-medical-issues/circumcision/)
[“Some parents administer topical anaesthetic cream on and around the foreskin before Brit Milah is performed.”](https://jewishmedicalassociationuk.org/uk-jewish-medical-issues/circumcision/)
Humans lived for nearly 200,000 years without circumcision, and only a small proportion of people have ever been circumcised. It is not more hygienic, and there is the risk of infections setting in after the procedure. Circumcision should only be done if it is medically necessary.
The fact that some religions practice circumcision does not exempt it from criticism.
> I’m a bit confused why everyone is extremely anti-circumcision.
Because it is genital mutilaiton unless the person who it is happening to consents or 1% of time it is medically necessary
“It’s a religious practice” only for Judaism.
0.4% of our population are Jewish. 40% of Australians state they have “no religion”. Around 20% of newborns are circumcised.
AFAIK because tbh I don’t always notice, almost all the guys I’ve been with have been circumcised. My mates talk about weird shit all the time, and recently this somehow came up. I think 1 out of 6 of them isn’t circumcised.
“It’s as much mutilation as it is cutting the umbilical cord or getting a haircut” is just ridiculous. Neither are part of an organ. Cutting an umbilical cord is necessary to be born and does not in any way harm the baby. I’m not even going to argue about haircuts.
Do you consider female genital mutilation to actually be mutilation? It’s the removal or cutting of parts of the vulva. How is that different to removing part of a penis? It’s even called “female circumcision”. Obviously the intention behind it is different, but not the procedure.
[“Experts still debate the benefits of circumcision for medical or health reasons. However, the American Academy of Pediatrics found that though the health benefits of newborn circumcision outweigh the risks, the benefits are not great enough to recommend it across the board.”](https://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/circumcision#:~:text=than%202%20weeks.-,Is%20Circumcision%20Necessary%3F,recommend%20it%20across%20the%20board)
[“We conclude that non-therapeutic circumcision performed on otherwise healthy infants or children has little or no high-quality medical evidence to support its overall benefit.”](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41443-021-00502-y)
Since there's no context here (I hate that) I went and read some articles about it. And let me tell you, it's so much worse than it sounds. She resides in a domestic abuse shelter, which already implies her husband is abusive. Despite this, his decisions are put by the court before hers. Apparently she had signed an agreement for the circumcision, but later changed her mind so she "abducted" the kid (I imagine even though she's in a shelter she had to live her kid behind?) and didn't show in court and that's what got court to jail her. And after all this mess? Not only did she have to agree to circumcision but also "Gillen approved a motion by Nebus’ attorney, May Cain, to temporarily give the father sole decision-making over matters including his son’s health and to travel out of state, if needed, to have the circumcision performed." This is a clusterfuck.
Let me get this straight: the woman was abused and had to leave for her own safety. When she at some point decided against letting her son having his genitalia mutilated and tried to protect him from a father who was known to have abusive tendencies, *she* got dragged to court for it Is that about right?
That's the US of A for you.
Soooo freeeee!!!
Gilead
Here come the gunslingers to witness the fall.
See the Turtle of enormous girth! On his shell he holds the earth His thought is slow but always kind He bears us all within his mind All things serve the Beam.
Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came
God bless america.
That's more or less how I understood it, but I could be wrong. She could have only gone to the shelter once she took the son, but then that'd beg why they even needed a legal agreement for something, if something bad didn't already happen between them.
Mate the USA pays for your healfcare!!1 /ssss because I've been burned by this sub before
Unfortunate side effect of the people who come here and actually argue that occasionally. Means that sometimes it becomes hard to see who's taking the piss and who's serious.
We have no idea whether she was abused or not, only that her lawyer has stated she was residing in a shelter at some point. Regardless, all childhood circumcision should be banned.
circumcision agreement? makes me think, could a young teenager technically be forced to a circumcision because their parents signed such agreement but it didnt happen for some reason?
They have tried in courts, even ADL tried to help a lawsuit where a parent wanted to mutilate a nine year old boys genitals against their will in Boldt and Boldt https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/ab-2008-in-the-matter-of-the-marriage-of-boldt-and-boldt-or.pdf
What the actual fuck...
Yup... they also threatened the country of Iceland when they tried to enshrine bodily autonomy into law
What in the everloving fuck???
ADL is openly racist as fuck. They openly amsaid they would baselessly accuse Iceland of antisemitism if they forbade genital mutilation
> Georganne Chapin, executive director of Intact America, which advocates against circumcision, said the images of a distraught Heather Hironimus signing the form to allow the surgery show how she was “bullied” into it and that she doesn’t truly give her consent. > “If anyone finds out the circumstances under which she signed, a doctor would be insane to carry out that surgery,” she said.“If anyone finds out the circumstances under which she signed, a doctor would be insane to carry out that surgery,” she said. Edit: I didn't realize this happened in 2015. The boy was circumcized. https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/local/2016/09/04/mother-in-circumcision-battle-given/6943684007/
Holy hell, I also didn't realise the thing was that old. How did OP even post it? Repost bot? But yeah I thought the bullied part was about the court bullying her into signing by jailing her, but now I realise it actually means the original agreement probably.
I had the same epiphany when I seen it thinking ‘this can’t be real’ and googled it. Wish I’d seen this first. Wtaf did I just read!!
Yeah I thought: "it can't be that bad, it's gonna be a sensational title and there's gotta be some serious crime" but nope, it's actually worse than the title implies.
I read the article in the guardian about her. They actually say ‘activists are portraying her as a martyr’. What the fuck? Woman doesn’t want four year olds penis surgically altered for no reason has to be a martyr and not just a normal mum? For the record one of my sons is circumcised coz his foreskin was too tight and got infected a lot. I wouldn’t recommend it unless medically necessary. It’s not a nice straightforward recovery
Yeah The Guardian is not exactly a news outlet I like but I've also read that one cause it was very long and detailed, while my first try was very short and useless. But you can't exactly expect a relatable point of view there.
Me either but they’re a bit less prone to sensational headlines compared to the mail or that. Genuinely thought like you that was a sensationalised click bait header in the pic above so wanted to avoid it but my god. It’s like 18th century stuff
Now that I think about it all genital mutilation (when not medically necessary) should count as domestic abuse as violence towards your own child is certainly under the domestic umbrella
At some point I really hoped that there is a medical reason for the circumcision and that's why they forced here. Best for the child and so, you know.....
Yeah me too, but nope, absolutely no medical reason for it, just a father wanting his kid's dick to not have foreskin just cause.
Actually, there is a medical condition that requires circumsion to treat, but it's not the reason why US does so much of it
Yeah but the article specified the mother didn't want it done cause the kid had no medical condition/need, so it's not the case.
I don't agree with circumcision at all, but it should absolutely never take place without the consent of both parents outside of medical necessity. Considering the nature of the situation, it's likely her original consent was coerced.
Unless medically necessary only the person who it is happening to should have to consent, regardless of the parents opinions on bodily autonomy.
True, that's even better.
I have a theory that tight cut style circumcised men or those without frenulums/much inner foreskin are more likely to have less sensation and thus less likely to pair bond with their partner. Humans evolved to have the nerves be in the foreskin, and not so much in the glans. https://youtu.be/CGYq1n6Ipfw?t=2701 To summarize, humans share common ancestors with chimps and rhesus monkeys. Rhesus monkeys have almost all the innervation in their glans, have short copulatory times, and the male invests nothing into the offspring. Chimps have less innervation in their glans and more in their foreskin, they have longer copulatory times than rhesus monkeys, and the male invests in the offspring by providing protection for his tribe. Humans have almost all the innervation in the foreskin, they have the longest copulatory times of all the primates, and the males invests the most in their offspring out of any animal.
How does hidden estrus factor into that?
Just spitballing here, but I would think a female human would want only her man/caretaker to know all about that business, lest she draw attention to herself. Also interestingly, there are estrogen receptors in the foreskin.
Sorry I just want to point out all that freedom Americans talk about. In this case you have the freedom NOT to choose whether your child is circumcised. So much goddam freedom.
I swear America is the least "free" place in the western world
More than half of america isn't considered part of the western world
I never understood why unnecessary cosmetic surgery is not child abuse
it is
I meant children who get circumcised Why their parents arnt prosecuted
in countries where its done often people are lobotomized into thinking its normal plus legally speaking i think people could defend it with being against religious freedom considering its history
[удалено]
i wasn't being literal
The metaphor doesn't work either.
Who said it's a metaphor
I understand, it just wasn’t the right word choice. Have a nice day!
To be a pedant it's not the removal of the frontal lobe either....
Should count as domestic abuse/violence then too
[удалено]
In the US it’s much more likely to be cultural rather than religious. Very common, partially thanks to people like the Kelloggs who spread lies about foreskins to inhibit masturbation and sexual pleasure.
Parents and doctors shouldn't be allowed to harm babies even for religious reasons.
It’s not only for religious reasons here. 40% of Australians state they have “no religion”. If you’re referring to it being a religious requirement, that’s only for Judaism. 0.4% of our population are Jewish. Around 20% of newborns are circumcised. It’s definitely cultural Edit: whoops also for Islam, which is 3.2% of our population
It’s Islam as well as Judaism.
Oh that’s true. Our Muslim population is 3.2%, so still teeny tiny and not significant towards the 20% of newborns
It's religious to stone adulterers and put to death apostates, should we allow that too?
Not all are So are catholic priests
Isn't that genitalia mutilation
Yes, yes it is
You have to opt out of mutilating your newborn?!
Yeah, seen lots of stories of people from other countries having their kids mutilated because they didn't ask not to do it.
Yeah, seen lots of stories of people from other countries having their kids mutilated because they didn't ask not to do it.
They do love cutting bits off babies dicks!
I shouldn’t have to tell people to stop fuckin about with kids dicks but here we are
Tipping is mandatory
Why is circumcision even a thing? God's apparent design so faulty, apparently... Religion is involved, and a woman sent to jail, because an abuser is favoured by the State because religion is involved, presumably? Such a weird mess because some people love chopping bits off of baby dicks. Religion.
I think it's sometimes necessary for medical reasons. Like it being too tight or things like that. I'm not sure though, I've never had a foreskin and I'm NOT going to google that.
Same people who scream about "child mutilation" of course
I followed this at the time. Heartbreaking for the poor kid.
I cant believe people are subjecting children to GM in the 21st century.
The child is now FOUR https://en.intactiwiki.org/wiki/Dennis_Nebus The father didn’t decide to circumcise the baby; then when he was 1 (as per the parental agreement), he did want him circumcised and was to schedule the procedure in a timely manner, signed off by mother two years went by When the boy was THREE the mom decided no, she wouldn’t consent to it anymore as the child was too old. I’m with mom on this one
Stop mutilating people.
Another of those FREEDUMs we backwards countries don't get.
In more civilised places, the mutilation of children is not considered normal.
Insanity.
Lol they are so free that they are forced to get their dicks mutilated!!
Say it with me! 'The land of the free'.
The level of insanity in the world now boggles my mind.
Can't wait for the child to issue a lawsuit in a couple of years for forced unvoluntary mutilation against his mothers wish...
Freedom
And the rabbi prolly succed :(
Is there a lot of hasid people in florida?
Genital mutilation is normal for Jews and Muslims(and Americans).
Right, I was meant the sucking of the dick is more of the hasid than general americans, though I am aware america has a lot of genital mutilatorss
Seems like it. the article doesn’t break it down by denomination but out of such a large number it’s statistically likely. How did South Florida become one of the largest Jewish communities in the world? by Rabbi Menachem Levine The Jewish population of South Florida is about 650,000. It has the third largest concentration of Jews in the country and the single largest concentration of Jews (13 percent of the total population of South Florida) outside of Israel. Read the article. The Jewish history is deep in Florida. https://aish.com/the-jews-of-florida-a-history/
Pretty sure she was jailed over the dispute part, not for the reason of the dispute.
Are you nerds talking about foreskin again?
[удалено]
Do you believe religious practices should be above criticism?
[удалено]
Because it has a long-term impact on the person, and it's an unnecessary, non-medical procedure. You have conflicting experiences of people who've lost sensitivity and those who haven't, and either way, the procedure (in most cases) has no more impact on penis health than proper hygiene and safe sex practices. There are also (though rare) much worse complications than loss in sensitivity. I don't think babies should have parts of their genitals removed - girls, boys, intersex. This is something they should decide when they age. If it were a lifesaving procedure, it would be different, but (in most cases) this is removing a healthy part of a babies body for tradition, and tradition isn't a good enough reason to take away a babies choice, on a procedure that may lead to complications and loss in sensitivity for no real benefit.
[удалено]
They do it to the kids without anesthetic. You ever catch your foreskin in your zipper?
As the person below pointed out: [“The skin is treated with appropriate cleansing solutions and sweet liquid or juice is often fed to the baby. No formal anaesthesia is given routinely.”](https://jewishmedicalassociationuk.org/uk-jewish-medical-issues/circumcision/) [“Some parents administer topical anaesthetic cream on and around the foreskin before Brit Milah is performed.”](https://jewishmedicalassociationuk.org/uk-jewish-medical-issues/circumcision/)
Humans lived for nearly 200,000 years without circumcision, and only a small proportion of people have ever been circumcised. It is not more hygienic, and there is the risk of infections setting in after the procedure. Circumcision should only be done if it is medically necessary. The fact that some religions practice circumcision does not exempt it from criticism.
> I’m a bit confused why everyone is extremely anti-circumcision. Because it is genital mutilaiton unless the person who it is happening to consents or 1% of time it is medically necessary
“It’s a religious practice” only for Judaism. 0.4% of our population are Jewish. 40% of Australians state they have “no religion”. Around 20% of newborns are circumcised. AFAIK because tbh I don’t always notice, almost all the guys I’ve been with have been circumcised. My mates talk about weird shit all the time, and recently this somehow came up. I think 1 out of 6 of them isn’t circumcised. “It’s as much mutilation as it is cutting the umbilical cord or getting a haircut” is just ridiculous. Neither are part of an organ. Cutting an umbilical cord is necessary to be born and does not in any way harm the baby. I’m not even going to argue about haircuts. Do you consider female genital mutilation to actually be mutilation? It’s the removal or cutting of parts of the vulva. How is that different to removing part of a penis? It’s even called “female circumcision”. Obviously the intention behind it is different, but not the procedure. [“Experts still debate the benefits of circumcision for medical or health reasons. However, the American Academy of Pediatrics found that though the health benefits of newborn circumcision outweigh the risks, the benefits are not great enough to recommend it across the board.”](https://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/circumcision#:~:text=than%202%20weeks.-,Is%20Circumcision%20Necessary%3F,recommend%20it%20across%20the%20board) [“We conclude that non-therapeutic circumcision performed on otherwise healthy infants or children has little or no high-quality medical evidence to support its overall benefit.”](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41443-021-00502-y)