This article buries the lead so hard that it doesn't even appear in the story. This isn't about it being illegal to raise an uncircumcised son or something.
The parents signed a contract as part of their separation. One stipulation of said contract was that the child get circumcised. Apparently he had phimosis. The mother signed off, then kidnapped the child and ran away. So now she's being held until the circumcision under breach of contract.
It doesn't matter what a contract says, courts take breach of contract very seriously. This is being made out to be a case of foreskin-hungry monsters victimizing an innocent woman who dindu nothin, but it's actually about a meth head who signed away her son's rights and then changed her mind when it was way too late and tried to "correct" the mistake by being hostile and uncooperative. The only reason she's not being held without bail due to felony kidnapping is because she's a woman.
Kids don't get phimosis, it is literally trying to diagnose a child with underdeveloped genitals. The foreskin naturally separates from the glans as a part of normal development. If it's still adhered after puberty, then you can treat it, which almost never requires surgery btw.
Even then, at some point if the kid finds it uncomfortable and wants to go through with the circumcision then that's his choice. They shouldn't do it to innocent babies.
That is totally ignorant. Uncircumcised boys get phimosis when the foreskin isn’t cleaned and properly taken care of. It can become quite painful and infected. A person I know had this happen and she’s not even a meth head.
This article buries the lead so hard that it doesn't even appear in the story. This isn't about it being illegal to raise an uncircumcised son or something.
The parents signed a contract as part of their separation. One stipulation of said contract was that the child get circumcised. Apparently he had phimosis. The mother signed off, then kidnapped the child and ran away. So now she's being held until the circumcision under breach of contract.
It doesn't matter what a contract says, courts take breach of contract very seriously. This is being made out to be a case of foreskin-hungry monsters victimizing an innocent woman who dindu nothin, but it's actually about a meth head who signed away her son's rights and then changed her mind when it was way too late and tried to "correct" the mistake by being hostile and uncooperative. The only reason she's not being held without bail due to felony kidnapping is because she's a woman.
If the kids phimosis actually required treatment and she refused she's not exactly "protecting" him.
Kids don't get phimosis, it is literally trying to diagnose a child with underdeveloped genitals. The foreskin naturally separates from the glans as a part of normal development. If it's still adhered after puberty, then you can treat it, which almost never requires surgery btw.
Even then, at some point if the kid finds it uncomfortable and wants to go through with the circumcision then that's his choice. They shouldn't do it to innocent babies.
It says, right in that article, that kids get it starting between ages 5-7.
That is totally ignorant. Uncircumcised boys get phimosis when the foreskin isn’t cleaned and properly taken care of. It can become quite painful and infected. A person I know had this happen and she’s not even a meth head.