Dad Performs (and Botches) Circumcision on His Four-Year-Old Son

Look, I’m not pro-circumcision, but implying that it is equivalent to female genital mutilation or intersex genital mutilation is downplaying those issues. People who are circumcised can still orgasm. People who are circumcised can do physical activity, ride bikes, and sit down without pain. The level of physical damage done by FGM or IGM is closer to removal of the entire penis. I agree both issues involve medically unessecary, nonconsensual genital alteration, and I do oppose circumcison, but don’t minimize FGM and IGM. To give an analogy, if someone cut off their kids’ pinky fingers, I would say that this was terrible, but it’s not as bad as cutting off the kids’ heads.

Your last full paragraph asks why this instance would have been different if the circumcision had involved a daughter instead of a son. Primarily it would have been different in that the Criminal Code of Canada specifically mentions female genitals in the sections on assault.

To quote sections 268(3) and 268(4):

(3) For greater certainty, in this section, “wounds” or “maims” includes to excise, infibulate or mutilate, in whole or in part, the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a person, except where

(a) a surgical procedure is performed, by a person duly qualified by provincial law to practise medicine, for the benefit of the physical health of the person or for the purpose of that person having normal reproductive functions or normal sexual appearance or function; or

(b) the person is at least eighteen years of age and there is no resulting bodily harm.

Consent
(4) For the purposes of this section and section 265, no consent to the excision, infibulation or mutilation, in whole or in part, of the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a person is valid, except in the cases described in paragraphs (3)(a) and (b).

see: http://www.lawyers.ca/statutes/criminal_code_of_canada_assault.htm

The courts probably used section 265(3)(d) “the exercise of authority.” as its basis for finding him not guilty of the assault charges.

I don’t agree with the man’s actions. If you feel that circumcision really is necessary for your child then have it done by a professional—whether that is a surgeon or môhel.

When asked in court whether the man used ice to ease the boy’s pain, he replied, “Where would the Israelites have found ice?”

Where would the Israelites have found steel razors? He should have used a bronze blade sharpened on a river stone, or a chip of obsidian. After all, some eye surgeons still use obsidian scalpels. They’re sharper than steel.

Where would the Israelites have found “a veterinary powder suitable for livestock and horses to deal with bleeding”? Salt maybe? Urine in sand? Spider web? Guano?

If he had done some other idiotic thing, what would the Israelites have done with a tribe member who was so spectacularly stupid? After all, the survival of the whole pack is at risk from such a moron.

Where the hell was the child’s mother during all of this?!

Poor kid. At least authorities seem to have removed the other children in that household.

Just to pick nits, female ‘circumcision’ is not circumcision, it’s castration. The equivalent is removing the penis, not just the foreskin. Circumcision is awful, but castration is horrific.

Actually ‘castration’ would involve removing the ovaries. Mutilating a child’s genitals, male or female is despicable. We should be protecting both male and female from such abuse.

I stand corrected with the term ‘castration’, because you are not removing ovaries (nor the testes.) The equivalent to removing the clitoris is to remove the penis. The equivalent to removing the foreskin would be removing the clitoral hood.

IMHO, none of these situations should be acceptable, and particularly not for a four year old doped with mead and spread out on a bunch of garbage bags.

Eric, I would regard the removal of the hood of the clitoris and the removal of the foreskin as roughly equal in acceptability (that is to say, they are both somewhat suspect when done to a child who cannot consent), but neither of those things is equivalent to the removal of the clitoris, which truly is more horrific than either. That position is not sexist.

I agree that this is mutilation, but the degree of damage is not equivalent. I agree with Eric that all non-medical alterations or injuries should be prohibited, but we must remember that doing these things to intersex people’s genatalia should be prohibited as well.

“a surgical procedure is performed, by a person duly qualified by provincial law to practise medicine, for the benefit of the physical health of the person or for the purpose of that person having normal reproductive functions or normal sexual appearance or function” That law allows for removal of small penises/large clitorises of intersex people when there is no physical need, because a penis too small can’t penetrate, ‘normal sexual funtion’ is seen as impossible, because you know, if you can’t have penetrative hetero sex, the ability to orgasm is meaningless. Intersex people have the same rights to consent and non-mutilation as the rest of us. Let’s not forget that in the US virtually ever intersex person has their genitals mutilated soon after birth.

Can we just say “any mucking about with private parts of babies and children is a no-no”?
And maybe “any fuckoff idiots who try and operate on children in a kitchen get thrown in jail and never get to be around children again”?
And “religion makes people do cruel and stupid things”?

Speaking from the Jewish perspective, Circumcisions are done within a few weeks of birth, and generally by a trained professional. (Doctor, or Mohel) As a secular child, I can say it was common in the mid sixties, when I was born, but still controversial. To claim a ‘Biblical Defense’ and not involve Rabbis, Mohels and other professionals is a little wacky.

If any are interested Penn and Teller did a section about Circumcision on their show B*LLS**t a few seasons back.

JulietEcho pointed something out this morning on the forum about this. Both parents were brain damaged which must mean that they have some diminished responsibility.

As JE wrote

Here’s a case of clear mental illness/mental damage that might not have happened without religion. In most cases where crazy people hurt themselves/others and claim religious reasons, I think that the crazy person would have just used another outlet for the crazy to vent itself. In this case, this man latched onto a book that much of society lauds constantly and takes seriously (and vocal minority argues should be taken literally), and his resultant obedience to it led to horrible harm.

If he had latched onto some other obsession – something else to give his life meaning – he may have stayed nonviolent.

Badshit crazy religion isn’t dangerous per se but combine it with a crazy or vulnerable person and you have a recipe for disaster. I would have thought a please of insanity would have been a better option for the defence. It may have got the father the treatment he clearly needs and that would protect society from any more harmful effects of his damaged mind. Instead religion has been used to try to excuse his actions.

I remain at a loss as to why religion is granted this special place in society especially in the light of the clear harm that often follows from the application of religious thinking. Why not grant religion no special place, no special pleading and no special defence? Assess the impact of religion on it’s pros and cons and not on the traditional place that it held. In this case religion has not only contributed to the mutilation of a boy and the distress of an entire family but may very well limit the help that the father needs.

OW OW OW!!!

I think the hesitation on the part of some people who oppose both the removal of the male foreskin, and the removal of the female clitoris, to oppose them both “the same way” is that there is SO MUCH social support for circumcision that we’re a little afraid that instead of eroding that support, we’ll *build* support for female genital mutilation.

I dunno. Both are horrible. Both must stop. Like yesterday. But I think it’s a tactical question, about what’s practical to do at this time.

But WOW, operating in your kitchen? Just *negligence???*

We have a pathological tendency to minimize any damage done to males and maximize any damage done to females in our society.

A boy punches another boy and it’s just roughhousing—boys will be boys, toughen up. If a boy punches a girl it’s horrible—you don’t hit girls, he’s a bully.

A girl gets molested by a male teacher: the man is a monster, what a horrible thing to do/happen, don’t even think of implying it was consensual. A boy gets molested by a female teacher: the boy is the luckiest guy on the planet, were were the teachers like her when I was in school, it’s no big deal, the kid wanted it.

This is all very true. Anyone who denies this is fooling themselves.

@stacey, if it was Alabama, I’m sure the dad would have been able to find a doctor to do it for him. He did go to a couple doctors who refused to do it– which *might* have reduced the sentence? Perhaps Canada is at a strange place where there are some doctors who refuse to do the procedure, but there’s still enough social support to understand wanting it done?

Once I learned that part of the case I’m wondering if this isn’t some twisted indication that circumcision is being slowly abandoned.

Why? What on earth would posses you to want to chop off part of a child? Yes I’m American. Yes I have a son. No I did not have him circumcised. What a horrifying thought.

I’ll answer for him (and debunk his answers):

It’s cleaner: So what else do you want to cut off so you won’t have to clean it, hmm? Ears, hair, teeth, etc.

Prevents infections: Same argument. What other things do you want to cut off to keep from infections?

Everyone else does it / It’s normal: Popular doesn’t mean right.

Your move, Michael.

What if this had been a Muslim parent performing female circumcision on his daughter?

Prime numbers, not a one of the people making the level of damage point also supported circumcision. I was very clear that I thought that circumcision is terrible, but, comparing to it FGM and IGM minimizes the severity of these. Also, when you do this it alienates people who do work around FGM and IGM and hurts your cause. Also, IGM is incredibly normalized within American culture and causes extensive damage.

Cathy, my comment rambled on a bit and was not as coherent as I would have liked.

but I *DON’T* agree with removing a 6th finger! Some children have six, naturally functioning fingers in a well formed hand. It would be mutilation to chop one off. It’s only if the finger is rudimentary, in fact doesn’t work well, and gets in the way of the child’s other fingers that it would be justifiable to cut it off.

Like a “medically necessary” circumcision. (Usually there are other treatment options, but circumcision is so common anyway it’s usually used first. I imagine there are *some* cases where it might actually be warranted.)

Also note that EVERY study about std transmission and circumcision has focused on men circumcised as adults. It can’t be used in support of neonatal circumcision.

A few things I want to respond to.

Lynet: Yes, removal of the clitoris is worse than removal of the foreskin. So? That’s not the position I call sexist, the position I call sexist is the cutting of female genitals=bad and cutting of male=good to neutral.

Cathy: Yes, exactly. Degree of harm doesn’t matter, harm is done for no good reason.

Keddaw: I have a friend with three thumbs, I don’t see why he needs the one removed.

Also, the STD argument is bullshit.
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/
An analysis of the scientific literature, published in The International Journal of STDs and AIDS, shows that men with circumcised penises are actually at a greater risk of HIV.