When I read this headline the other day, I could barely contain myself.  A family is actually feuding over whether their boy will be circumcised or not, a decision that is often a religiously or personal preference based one. 

An 8 year old Chicago boy’s parents are divorced and are now fighting in court over whether the boy should be circumcised now (of course, now that it will hurt more - why don’t people get this done when they should - when the kid’s a baby and doesn’t really know better?) that he is eight years old and knows someone is messing with his package. 

The boy’s mother wants to get the kid circumcised because she said the poor boy’s experienced a painful inflammation over the past year that can be rectified by circumcision, which is primarily a sanitary issue, and can cause problems if it’s not done (it can cause infection and pain if it is not properly cared for, because the penis is more prone to bacteria growth and infection - ouch). 

The boy’s father is opposed to the idea, because he says he does not believe it is medically necessary enough to justify the pain and psychological issues that may come along with having him circumcised so late in life. 

The mother’s attorney is claiming that religion is the father’s motive for not having the circumcision, not the concern for his child’s psychological welfare. 

The mother pleads a convincing case, since she said her son has come to her crying in pain asking what she can do to help him and saying that his penis “doesn’t look normal”.  Usually penises that are not circumcised may looked a little longer, like a slightly enlarged penis in some ways, because the foreskin is not removed, and some men may actually feel comfortable because American women are used to looking at circumcised penises, and are taken aback when seeing ones that are not. 

I say let the mother win here - it sounds as though not having the procedure is causing the boy more discomfort than the procedure will.  What do you think?