~ archived since 2018 ~

Mother arranges for daughter to be circumcised and is present for the procedure. She faces 20 years in prison. Father faces life because he has a penis.

andejoh

June 1, 2017

95 upvotes

The archive didn't come out great, but here are the essentials.

"Dr. Jumana Nagarwala of Northville is accused of mutilating the genitalia of two girls from Minnesota on Feb. 3 at a Livonia clinic owned by Dr. Fakhruddin Attar. The Farmington Hills man has been indicted along with his wife, Farida Attar, who is accused of helping arrange the procedure and being in the examination room during the procedure."

"Fakhruddin Attar, 52, and Nagarwala, 44, face up to life in prison if convicted of conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. Farida Attar, 50, faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted of conspiring to obstruct the investigation."

http://archive.is/fLrUL

So if both parents participated in arranging the procedure and she was actually present for it, how does she get charged with a lesser crime. It isn't just the judges that give lower sentences. The sentencing gap exists at all stages of the criminal justice system from arrest to charging to plea bargaining to sentencing.

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Mother arranges for daughter to be circumcised and is present for the procedure. She faces 20 years in prison. Father faces life because he has a penis.
Author	andejoh
Upvotes	95
Comments	39
Date	June 1, 2017 8:08 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6epecf/mother_arranges_for_daughter_to_be_circumcised/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/mother-arranges-for-daughter-to-be-circumcised-and.921413 https://theredarchive.com/post/921413

Comments

[–][deleted] 47 points48 points49 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgripwontstfu 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZeJerman 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yndrd1984 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]andejoh[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There is a bit more to the story than that. The mother and father didn't care one way or the other whether the boy was circumcised (the agreement was made shortly after the boy was born), but where circumcising essentially because that's what you do.

In the agreement it was the father's responsibility to set up the procedure. Almost 4 years went by, he didn't care until the mother became anti-circ then he wanted to circumcise the boy to spite the mom at this point the child is 4 years old. The judgement should have been throw out even on legal grounds. If there is a time is of the essence clause, then obviously the father lost his chance. If there wasn't, then the mother has to agree, but should have to agree any time prior to the child turning 18.

It's beyond me that anyone can argue in any contract that I have as much time as I want to execute our time unspecified agreement and take over 3 years, but you have to do your part within a few days of me being ready. I'm pretty sure this would not have been ruled this way if it wasn't to circumcise a boy.

[–]Yndrd1984 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's beyond me that anyone can argue in any contract that I have as much time as I want to execute our time unspecified agreement and take over 3 years, but you have to do your part within a few days of me being ready. I'm pretty sure this would not have been ruled this way if it wasn't to circumcise a boy.

There aren't many laws against not bothering to enforce a contract, but as soon as a court gets involved things move faster, especially if one side doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. I would expect the same result if the mother was asking for child support after not getting any for 3 years.

to spite the mom

That's a huge problem in general with family court. But if they had agreed not to circumcise, the mother now wanted to, and the court said 'No, follow the agreement' then you'd see the father as a hero rather than spiteful.

[–]oneiorosgripwontstfu 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yndrd1984 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

If they had a contract to have sex, do you think there would not be hell to pay if a judge tried to enforce that after the divorce?

The law is kind of a mishmash of arbitrary rules, even more so when it comes to sex, so a post-marriage sex contract would fare even worse than a prenuptial agreement. But it's legal to have a contract to preform sex acts in a pornographic movie, and if a porn star refuses to fulfill their contract you can sue them - and (in essence) they'd be forced to consent to you taking their money.

If information changes that perception and the party in question is convinced the thing will be harmful instead of healthy, it is a gross miscarriage of justice to use the contract to force that consent. No contract can be justifiably enforced when enforcement means overriding an individual's protection of their child's health, any more than it would if it meant overriding an individual's protection of their own health.

What if it was vaccination that she wanted to back out of? We don't think of it as being at all similar, but under the law their both just routine medical procedures.

Are you suggesting that the judge should allow her to break the agreement? Based on what, that he happens to be anti-circ? What happens when parents agree not to cut, but then mom changes her mind and the judge is pro-circ? You'd end up with random results, nobody on either side of the issue would know what to expect, and all contracts become worthless.

Until we manage to change how the medical and legal system view circumcision judges have to remain neutral - that's literally their job. We're all better off in a civilization with occasional atrocities like this than not having a civilization at all.

[–]oneiorosgripwontstfu 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

they'd be forced to consent to you taking their money.

But not to sex.

What if it was vaccination that she wanted to back out of?

The result would still be a judge overriding an individual's parental autonomy for an invalid reason.

Are you suggesting that the judge should allow her to break the agreement?

Absolutely.

Based on what, that he happens to be anti-circ?

Based on the fact that it's 1) not the judge's child, and 2) not a question of whether refraining from circumcising the child is an act of abusively withholding essential medical treatment. Your argument was simply "contract, therefore requirement." In your own mention of prenuptial agreements, you admitted that the validity and interpretation of contracts can be affected by mitigating circumstances. That is a mitigating circumstance.

In this case, the judge did not remain neutral. His stated decision was that the child must be circumcised because he, the judge, felt the procedure has health benefits, not merely because the mother signed a contract. The judge overrode a parent's decision regarding her consent for a controversial medical procedure on the basis of his own, personal opinion on the procedure.

[–]Yndrd1984 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

But not to sex.

Right. My whole point was that you can't create a good analogy with situations using either sexual activity, or with only two adults (and no children or other incompetent) involved.

The result would still be a judge overriding an individual's parental autonomy for an invalid reason.

Based on the fact that it's 1) not the judge's child, and 2) not a question of whether refraining from circumcising the child is an act of abusively withholding essential medical treatment.

You don't seem to get that the father wanted him cut, and that's the whole reason she was in court in the first place. It's not 'her vs the judge' it's 'her vs her ex (and the agreement they made)', and in some cases men are treated as if they have equal parental rights. So no matter what, someone's 'parental autonomy' was going to be 'overridden'.

So the judge has two adults that disagree on a parenting decision, which is often very difficult. But wait, they both freely signed an agreement making that decision already, so the solution is obvious - make them stick to the agreement.

His stated decision was that the child must be circumcised because he, the judge, felt the procedure has health benefits, not merely because the mother signed a contract.

I doubt that. Most likely he cited the dubious American medical consensus to counter an argument she was making - and overturning those beliefs is explicitly not his job. He is required to use the opinions of experts, not his own.

Your argument was simply "contract, therefore requirement."

That's what it means to have a legally-binding contract. What do you think it means when you sign papers?

Are you suggesting that the judge should allow her to break the agreement?

Absolutely.

Then point to some general legal principal that, given the generally-accepted assumption that circumcision is a reasonable parental choice about a common medical procedure, would allow the judge to void the agreement in this situation.

[–]oneiorosgripwontstfu 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Right. My whole point was that you can't create a good analogy with situations using either sexual activity, or with only two adults (and no children or other incompetent) involved.

Except it is a good analogy, because the judge forced her to consent to having part of her son's penis cut off based on his own opinion of the procedure.

You don't seem to get that the father wanted him cut, and that's the whole reason she was in court in the first place.

That doesn't override the other parent's right to choose whether or not to consent to a procedure.

It's not 'her vs the judge' it's 'her vs her ex (and the agreement they made)', and in some cases men are treated as if they have equal parental rights.

This was not an equal parental right situation. This was a parent wishing to override the child's right to bodily autonomy demanding that a judge force the other parent to not change her mind about violating that autonomy once she figured out that what she'd agreed to would do that.

I doubt that. Most likely he cited the dubious American medical consensus to counter an argument she was making - and overturning those beliefs is explicitly not his job. He is required to use the opinions of experts, not his own.

There is no American consensus. People who make money from the procedure claim it's good. A vast amount of information debunking their claim is available from other medical experts, including urologists. This was not a case of a judge "listening to the experts." This was a case of a judge picking which "experts" to believe based on his own beliefs.

Based on the fact that it's 1) not the judge's child, and 2) not a question of whether refraining from circumcising the child is an act of abusively withholding essential medical treatment. Your argument was simply "contract, therefore requirement." In your own mention of prenuptial agreements, you admitted that the validity and interpretation of contracts can be affected by mitigating circumstances. That is a mitigating circumstance.

That's what it means to have a legally-binding contract. What do you think it means when you sign papers?

Your argument looks like a pretty stupid argument when presented in context rather than in response to one sentence taken out of the middle of the paragraph that gives it context, doesn't it. Pretty much demonstrates you ignored the point to make an argument that was countered in the argument to which you're offering it as a counter.

Then point to some general legal principal that, given the generally-accepted assumption that circumcision is a reasonable parental choice about a common medical procedure, would allow the judge to void the agreement in this situation.

You don't get to make that stipulation. The assumption is 1) not generally accepted, but promoted for profit, and 2) not legally binding.
Further, legal precedents are set when a circumstance is put before the court that has something about it which does not fit existing precedents. This is such a situation, and it being such a situation invalidates any validity in your demand for a precedent.
It has, however, set the precedent that a judge can order a citizen to consent to something the citizen considers a violation of his or his dependent's right to bodily autonomy.

[–]Yndrd1984 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

There is no American consensus.

You don't get to make that stipulation. The assumption is 1) not generally accepted, but promoted for profit...

I'm sorry, but there is an consensus among American doctors, and that is that either choice by a child's parents is fine. The fact that both of us disagree with it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

And your insistence that courts should ignore the AAP and other medical organizations in favor of your own personal opinion is just silly. Do you really think that you get to determine what assumptions a court is required to make?

This was not an equal parental right situation. This was a parent wishing to override the child's right to bodily autonomy

There is no legally recognized right to bodily autonomy that is violated by circumcision. I think that should change, but just like gay marriage, it's not the job of local judges to violate precedent based on their own opinions - that's what higher courts are for.

And again, we're better off with some rights being violated along with a clear path to fix it than having rights be determined essentially at random, which is what we'd have if every judges started inventing legal rights based on their own opinion.

That is a mitigating circumstance. ... Pretty much demonstrates you ignored the point

Maybe I'm assuming some background legal knowledge that you don't have. There are a limited number of cases where contracts can be voided, but none apply here. And again, prenuptial agreements (like most law around marriages) have their own set of very unusual rules, and you're not going to get far looking at them for an understanding of how this case was handled.

[+]lastlaugh100 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (19 children) | Copy Link

so tired of men and boys are treated like second class citizens in this country.

Girls get to keep their genitals while any excuse is valid for cutting the genitals of a boy (looks better, it's a tradition, it's cleaner, it's healthier, so he looks like dad, so he looks like other boys, STD prevention, cancer prevention, easier to keep clean, fucking goes on and on).

I got a vasectomy instead of committing suicide. I hope that Blood Stained Men and Intact America can make some progress in my lifetime.

[+][deleted] -16 points-15 points-14 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]PillTheRed 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This isn't even really true, and k challenge you to find a source backing it.

Most female circumcision doesn't remove "everything," or even close. There are like four different types, and the ones that decrease sexual pleasure entirely aren't very common.

On the other hand, the foreskin is the most nerve dense part of the body and tons of specialized cells, receptors, and nerves. Male circumcision has been PROVEN to lower sexual pleasure, and even increase the risk of some STDs.

So no, it doesn't remove all sensation from sex, but it does lower it. Not to mention, the debate should not even be about medical reasons or whatever reason people usually come up with. This is purely about bodily autonomy. There is no reason to do this to a non consenting baby, when you could let him grow up, and simply let the individual make the decision for themself.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]andejoh[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shadowguyver 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]violaki -11 points-10 points-9 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]splodgenessabounds 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]violaki -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]splodgenessabounds 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for the reply.

The reason I ask is because I'm wary of blanket statements like "doing X causes Y". I'm not especially well-informed on this subject either (but I'm learning). The link you gave says:

Circumcision might have various health benefits, including:

Easier hygiene

They then say that cleaning an uncircumcised is easy.

Decreased risk of urinary tract infections.

Maybe, but by how much? UTI's are common and widespread in males whether entire or circumcised: the prevalence has much more to do with personal hygiene and sexual choices than anything else.

Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.

Note the modifier "might" in that sentence. If the Mayo Clinic has no real clue about this, I have to wonder why they bothered to bring the subject up in the first place.

Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis).

Note the modifier "occasionally". What do they mean by that? It's not AFAIK any sort of reliable or reputable measure, and it's certainly not sufficient grounds to circumcise an infant on.

Decreased risk of penile cancer.

By how much? What other factors are there and what are their relative importance? BTW, the risk of penile cancer is 100,000:1 IOW 0.01% of men get it sauce. Hardly of epidemic proportions.

... cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men

That's a bold claim and, in the Mayo Clinic's case, an unsubstantiated one. There may be some correlation, but the incidence of cervical cancer depends on many factors, including multiple sexual partners, HPV infection, smoking, the pill and sexual contact at an early age.

To my amateur eye, none of the above are singularly compelling.

[–]violaki 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Decreased risk of UTIs. Maybe, but by how much?

A lot, especially at younger ages. Conditional analysis showed relative risk of uncircumcised to circumcised males ages 0-1 to be almost 10x higher, and 3-4x higher in adulthood. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25332502

Decreased risk of STDs

Circumcision's protective effects against HIV are well established in the medical and public health community. This study shows "strong evidence that medical male circumcision reduces the acquisition of HIV by heterosexual men by between 38% and 66% over 24 months." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19370585

Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally...

I agree. These are (on their own) not valid reasons to circumcise because of their rarity.

For the record: scientists use words like "may" and "might" all the time to cover their bases and acknowledge that there's always the chance of statistical anomaly. From what I've been reading, it looks like the dominant school of thought is that while there are risks and potentially negative effects, they are outweighed by the protective effects against UTIs and STDs. (again, not a personal opinion but the impression I've gotten from a brief literature search)

[–]Yndrd1984 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Decreased risk of UTIs

Did you cite the wrong article? There's nothing in the conclusion about UTIs.

Decreased risk of STDs

These studies are widely dismissed outside of the US:

The primary in-country reason is the lack of relevance. If dozens of large-scale long-term studies in industrialized nations of men who were (or weren't) circumcised as infants show either no correlation with STD rates or only a minuscule one, why would you favor conflicting results of small, short-term studies done on men who were (or weren't) circumcised as adults in extremely poor nations where practices like vaginal drying are common? If the rate of F->M PIV transmission of HIV isn't even a rounding error in the total rate of Western nations, why favor this intervention over much cheaper, much more effective ones like needle exchanges and condoms?

Then there are the problems with the studies themselves. Basic issues like more men dropping out of the study than contracting HIV and the fact that the healing period counted as part of the study time (possibly amplified by the fact that most HIV tests have a delay before returning a positive result). Confounding factors like not taking into account behavioral changes after an extended period with no sex or now being accepted by the Muslim community (a major reason for wanting the surgery in the first place), or the fact that the experimental group had more contact with doctors and more emphasis put on the need to wear condoms than the control group.

And above all, how much evidence would it take for you to start supporting FGM as well as MGM as a way to combat HIV? I wouldn't support it, but the results of this study are on firmer footing than the one you cited since they actually tried to account for a variety of confounding factors.

[–]shadowguyver 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]lastlaugh100 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I gave it as an example of bullshit reasons. Babies don't have sex so STD prevention is not a good enough reason to perform genital reduction surgery. Penile cancer is more rare than male breast cancer, it's a bullshit excuse for mutilating boys.

If we cut off the labia majora of girls we would prevent vulvar cancer yet that would be illegal.

[–]andejoh[S] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]andejoh[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Funcuz 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DanBollinger 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]andejoh[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BaileysBaileys 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]andejoh[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BaileysBaileys 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]andejoh[S] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He did have knowledge. According to the article:

Dr. Jumana Nagarwala faces life in prison because she performed the circumcision.
Farida Attar (mother) faces 20 years in prison because she helped arrange for the procedure to take place and was present while it was taking place.
Fakhruddin Attar (father) faces life in prison because he owned the clinic (interesting how it isn't marital property in this instance.) and probably helped arrange for the procedure (not specifically mentioned in article, but can be inferred).

Just looking at the facts, it doesn't appear that the father was more responsible than the mother. It could be argued that since she was present, he might be less responsible. I don't see him as either less or more responsible, which is the problem. They should face the same consequences.

[–]the_unseen_one 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link