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.
I mean, I feel like you shouldn't be able to sign a contract guaranteeing a mutilation to begin with and any court trying to uphold it delegitimizes itself by doing so regardless of the legality of a contract on its own. I can't have a divorce contract stating I would only rape my child once a week, then have a court only jail me once I do it twice.
Circumcision is not illegal so the courts can enforce it, rape is illegal so they can't.
It's like if your kid has 6 fingers you can say well I'll give up my parental rights if you agree to get his sixth finger sawed off. Kid was born with 6 fingers so chopping one off is mutilation, but it's legal to do and at least in America most people would rather their kid have only 5 fingers.
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.
I mean, I feel like you shouldn't be able to sign a contract guaranteeing a mutilation to begin with and any court trying to uphold it delegitimizes itself by doing so regardless of the legality of a contract on its own. I can't have a divorce contract stating I would only rape my child once a week, then have a court only jail me once I do it twice.
Circumcision is not illegal so the courts can enforce it, rape is illegal so they can't.
It's like if your kid has 6 fingers you can say well I'll give up my parental rights if you agree to get his sixth finger sawed off. Kid was born with 6 fingers so chopping one off is mutilation, but it's legal to do and at least in America most people would rather their kid have only 5 fingers.
Then we’d be having a conversation about forced plastic surgery for facial scar removal.