Court order: you must cut your baby

?Are we really in a world with children's rights

?

we have made advances since the time when women had no right to vote. society has given some rights to women and children

but not when it comes to pain

PAIN is often what is "GOOD" for a child

I finally found out that two months ago, in the end of June 2014 the Israeli Supreme court ruled that a court may order a parent to cut their child.

A COURT MAY ORDER A PARENT TO CUT THEIR CHILD

As long as the court decides "it is the child's good" no parent may protect their baby from pain nor from what they consider "injury"

!!

can a cut, ANY CUT and worse AN INTENSELY PAINFUL CUT, an intensely painful cut, ever be "good" for a healthy baby

??

Even an ill child needs pain-killer during surgery for a health PROBLEM

!!

although the "wise judges" quoted premises of medical need [that means: "just as we may order a parent to do surgery for medical need, also for religion??] obviously "medical need" is not comparable to when a baby is HEALTHY

!!

the tale began several months ago when a rabbinic court ordered a couple, as part of the divorce, to cut the baby for RELIGIOUS CIRCUMCISION.

mommy wanted to protect her baby from the intense PAIN of circumcision, but who is so stupid to believe that rabbis have COMPASSION about a child's pain? religion is the only thing to consider

!!

so mommy hired a lawyer and asked the secular court

the secular court ruled: in this instance the rabbis went too far [naughty rabbi] but in PRINCIPAL mommy cannot interfere when daddy wants to hire someone to cut their baby

gasp!

is it not her child too

??

if they do not agree, how can it be "proper" to take "action" when we must be "passive" and delay the decision at least in this instance of intense pain 

PROTECT THE BABY FROM INTENSE PAIN

both pain during the surgery, as well as the pain in the weeks of healing and not ignoring the word ACID in uric acid

!!

obviously if the parents agree either way, then there is no court issue, but what if they do not agree?

the court says "we may command a parent to cut their baby" in the absence of both parents consent and in the absence of the child's consent because it is "so important" that a "covered" organ should be the same as "everyone's" in a Jewish state=yet this is a false assumption in an age when "MORE AND MORE parents are not circumcising" anymore!

it is not "like everyone" even in the Jewish state

also the organ is covered!

also the pain is intense

!!

also the baby is healthy!
it is Jewish "not to cut" in an era when MORE AND MORE Jews are deciding not to cut anymore