GUILTY NC - Johnny Marlowe for circumcising newborn sons, Kings Creek, 2008

[White Rain]

You're welcome! :blowkiss:

Why are people assuming this *&^%%&% fool did this to his sons for religious reasons? Was a ceremony mentioned?

Has anyone heard of infectious bacteria? Or pain? What did he do, give them a shot of whiskey? This is not the wild frontier, ya'll, and children do have some rights.

This was abuse, and I wish people would put themselves in the place of these little boys when a father is coming at them with a knife, ok? Just use your imaginations just a little, if you have one?

Yea I wonder how willing he'd be to let someone slice him with a "utility knife?" I bet he'd put up a big fight!

 

[BhamMama]

Or pain? What did he do, give them a shot of whiskey? This is not the wild frontier, ya'll, and children do have some rights.

You do know that in hospitals they do not numb, nor give any painkillers, when they do the Circumcision right?

Circumcision is legal! And it's been done for hundreds of years.

How is it that what starts as a religious ceremony turns into a medical debate? I'm not trying to be a smarty pants. So does the religion make it okay but it's abuse for others? Does having it done during a religious ceremony make people think it hurts less? I KNOW it hurts! It hurts when a doctor does it too!

Really, what is the difference? We were not there to see if he swabbed them. Or did aftercare. You know what doctors use to have you use, vasoline! Yep, that's it!

And being pregnant was never a medical condition either! MANY folks don't want, nor need, medical intervention for a conditon that doesn't make them sick but is treated like a sickness. Should using a midwife and having a birth at home also be considered abuse to some? There will be a lot of folks in trouble if so, myself included.

I'm just asking questions. I'm a bit confused, as I always am when this subject comes up, as to who decides it's abuse when it's not religion and it's not when you are covered by that umbrella.

I have no clue if this man was doing it for religious purposes. But if so, that's his right! They'd have to fight every Jew on earth if they tried to stop it...because you can't outlaw it for just those who aren't of one faith but allow it for the ones of one faith. Did that even make sense? lol

I'm sure I'll be slammed. But I'm really trying to find out what the thinking is. Not trying to be ugly at all!

 

[Hiker]

http://www.hickoryrecord.com/servle...DR_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173354498868

From the same article: [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Dallas police investigators started investigating Marlowe when police were called to his home sometime last year. Investigators learned Marlowe went to Myrtle Beach, S.C., with one of his two wives and left his 11 children, all of young age, home alone. This will likely result in further charges of child neglect.

The article also says this man circumcised his sons on the eighth day - the day specified in the Old Testament to circumcise male infants. My guess is he is going to claim that this is part of his religious practice and the charges around that will be dropped. As others have noted, a Jewish Bris is not considered abuse so a private citizen practicing his faith in a similar manner would not be considered abuse either.
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[sherri79]

You do know that in hospitals they do not numb, nor give any painkillers, when they do the Circumcision right?

Circumcision is legal! And it's been done for hundreds of years.

How is it that what starts as a religious ceremony turns into a medical debate? I'm not trying to be a smarty pants. So does the religion make it okay but it's abuse for others? Does having it done during a religious ceremony make people think it hurts less? I KNOW it hurts! It hurts when a doctor does it too!

Really, what is the difference? We were not there to see if he swabbed them. Or did aftercare. You know what doctors use to have you use, vasoline! Yep, that's it!

And being pregnant was never a medical condition either! MANY folks don't want, nor need, medical intervention for a conditon that doesn't make them sick but is treated like a sickness. Should using a midwife and having a birth at home also be considered abuse to some? There will be a lot of folks in trouble if so, myself included.

I'm just asking questions. I'm a bit confused, as I always am when this subject comes up, as to who decides it's abuse when it's not religion and it's not when you are covered by that umbrella.

I have no clue if this man was doing it for religious purposes. But if so, that's his right! They'd have to fight every Jew on earth if they tried to stop it...because you can't outlaw it for just those who aren't of one faith but allow it for the ones of one faith. Did that even make sense? lol

I'm sure I'll be slammed. But I'm really trying to find out what the thinking is. Not trying to be ugly at all!

the courts are the ones who usually decide. why is it legal for some native tribes to use mushrooms but for the rest of us it is a drug? why is it ok for farmers and priest to slice the neck of a animal and allow it to bleed to death but if a teenage boy does it there is a crime? the reason behind a event is often used to decide if the event is a crime.

as for how doctors perform the cutting of the foreskin i know my son was given a local. they normally use a special tool to do it but due to my son being larger than normal i had to sign a waver allowing them to use a regular blade instead. a doctor checked him that night to make sure he was doing ok. nurses and doctors checked to make sure i knew what to look for as a sign of infection.

doctors use mold to create a medicine they feed you when you have a infection. a parent who did the same thing would be guilty of abuse imo.

 

[angelmom]

And being pregnant was never a medical condition either! MANY folks don't want, nor need, medical intervention for a conditon that doesn't make them sick but is treated like a sickness. Should using a midwife and having a birth at home also be considered abuse to some? There will be a lot of folks in trouble if so, myself included.

Being pregnant may not be a medical condition for everyone, but it sure is for some people! I would be dead right now (and so would each and every one of my children) if it weren't for medical intervention into my pregnancies. The people I know who gave birth at home did so after having an uncomplicated pregnancy and under guidance from someone (usually a midwife but sometimes a doctor) who gave them the green light for a safe home birth. All did so with the understanding that they lived close enough to a hospital to get there quickly should something go wrong, as I know from personal experience that it can in a very short time. All did so with the firm belief that their child's life and the safety of the mother was more important than their wish for a certain type of birthing experience.

But back on topic, mohels and doctors who perform circumcision are trained and use instruments that are approved by a governing body. There is some protection for the child that the person coming at them with a sharp instrument has the proper knowledge of what the hell he is doing!

I don't see how anyone could argue that this genius qualified in any way - there is no indication that he has any training; he obviously is a neglectful parent (leaving the little ones home alone) and possibly an abusive husband to not one but two women (not allowing them to receive care). For sure he holds the law in contempt (bigamy, child neglect). Why would you give him the benefit of the doubt that he even attempted to sterilize the Xacto knife before going after his newest baby? I'm just hoping he was sober!

 

[csds703]

It's also called a Bris - the ceremony where the child is circumcised (8 days after birth, I believe) in front of God and everybody (family and friends). It's usually done in the child's home and there's a big party afterwards!:woohoo:

I've never had the privilege to attend one.

I'm not sure it is a priviledge. LOL. I've been to many and it still upsets me. I end up hiding where I can't see what's going on.

 

[Amraann]

But you have to admit that people do have children they can't afford, and in this case, that is what happened.

*skips the Mormon question* - Polygamy is illegal in this country, sorry.

And this so-called "father" was mutilating his children with a knife, and he could have killed them if they bled to death. So good luck to him in jail, and I hope he never gets out, whatever his religious persuasion. Evil is evil.

:behindbar :behindbar :behindbar :behindbar :behindbar :behindbar

I agree people do have children they cannot afford.
I really am not clear on why Polygamy is not legal... I mean seriously... I don't really care if someone has 3 wives.
Its a brave man who could tolerate 3 (or more) women PMSing and if a women does not care that her hubby has other wives then I don't see a problem?
Look at society today with many people having babies out of wedlock and with different people..
In truth people could simply live together and its not against the law..

 

[golfmom]

He's already serving a short sentence for assault on a female and child neglect. It looks like they'll arrest him as soon as he gets out on the circumcision.

Marlowe is currently in the Gaston County Detention Center serving a 105-day sentence for assault on a female and child neglect, a result of guilty pleas he entered a week ago in Gaston County Court. Hartley said the sheriff’s office would serve the warrants on Marlowe closer to his release or immediately following his release. Hartley said that would give her more time to investigate and possibly file other charges.​

 

[Chloekins]

You do know that in hospitals they do not numb, nor give any painkillers, when they do the Circumcision right?

Actually most hospitals give the option of having [SIZE=-1]anesthesia[/SIZE] given to the child at the time of the procedure. In the event that the parent does not want to pay for it as it requires a separate consultation from an anesthesiologist and thus a separate bill some opt for localized numbing. Some countries require it without option. In the US it is only optional. I personally find that it distasteful and as a physician would never preform the procedure. If it is for religious reason fine I understand and respect your views. This is not something that is done wholesale outside of the US. In Europe less than 5% of the population undergoes this procedure as most view it as mutilation akin to female genital mutilation. Its all about culture and world views. Each person must make their own decisions about how to raise their children. Putting your child in harms way by preforming a medical procedure using inadequate instruments in an unsterilized environment is recklessly endangering your child not to mention illegal in this country. End of story.

 

[Kymistry35]

You do know that in hospitals they do not numb, nor give any painkillers, when they do the Circumcision right?

Circumcision is legal! And it's been done for hundreds of years.

How is it that what starts as a religious ceremony turns into a medical debate? I'm not trying to be a smarty pants. So does the religion make it okay but it's abuse for others? Does having it done during a religious ceremony make people think it hurts less? I KNOW it hurts! It hurts when a doctor does it too!

Really, what is the difference? We were not there to see if he swabbed them. Or did aftercare. You know what doctors use to have you use, vasoline! Yep, that's it!

And being pregnant was never a medical condition either! MANY folks don't want, nor need, medical intervention for a conditon that doesn't make them sick but is treated like a sickness. Should using a midwife and having a birth at home also be considered abuse to some? There will be a lot of folks in trouble if so, myself included.

I'm just asking questions. I'm a bit confused, as I always am when this subject comes up, as to who decides it's abuse when it's not religion and it's not when you are covered by that umbrella.

I have no clue if this man was doing it for religious purposes. But if so, that's his right! They'd have to fight every Jew on earth if they tried to stop it...because you can't outlaw it for just those who aren't of one faith but allow it for the ones of one faith. Did that even make sense? lol

I'm sure I'll be slammed. But I'm really trying to find out what the thinking is. Not trying to be ugly at all!

That is not true. When my oldest kids were circumcised, a numbing cream was rubbed on him first. It was also performed by a PROFESSIONAL that knew what he was doing in a STERILE environment. My youngest is not circumcised and my husband and I argue about whether it should be done. If my husband decided to take matters into his own hands and came at my son with a utility knife, I would kill him right there.

 

[golfmom]

PHOTO AT LINK

http://www.kalb.com/index.php/news/article/home-circumcision/3361/

A self-admitted polygamist is facing allegations the he circumcised two of his young sons with a utility knife.

Johnny Marlowe is currently in jail in Gastonia, North Carolina after being arrested for assaulting his wife, lying to police and endangering his 11 children by leaving them home alone.

.....

Authorities now call the two women victims of abuse.

All children remain in the care of social services.

 

[dark_shadows]

My son was numbed in the hospital.
I would never have allowed my son to have that procedure done without a numbing agent.

It is my parental duty to protect my child from pain, not inflict it on him.

Also there is no way in hell that I would have allowed my husband to do that at home with a utility knife!!!!

Respectfully,
dark_shadows

 

[southcitymom]

Actually most hospitals give the option of having [SIZE=-1]anesthesia[/SIZE] given to the child at the time of the procedure. In the event that the parent does not want to pay for it as it requires a separate consultation from an anesthesiologist and thus a separate bill some opt for localized numbing. Some countries require it without option. In the US it is only optional. I personally find that it distasteful and as a physician would never preform the procedure. If it is for religious reason fine I understand and respect your views. This is not something that is done wholesale outside of the US. In Europe less than 5% of the population undergoes this procedure as most view it as mutilation akin to female genital mutilation. Its all about culture and world views. Each person must make their own decisions about how to raise their children. Putting your child in harms way by preforming a medical procedure using inadequate instruments in an unsterilized environment is recklessly endangering your child not to mention illegal in this country. End of story.

A number of insurance companies in the US are beginning to deny coverage for routine cosmetic circumcision. Perhaps it will fall out of fashion if parents have to pay for it themselves.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I opted when my son was born not to put him through such a barbaric procedure. The choice was mine and my OB agreed with me wholeheartedly as he was among a growing group of Medical Professionals trying to stop the practice. At the time, no numbing agent was used and it was common for the boy to pass out from the pain (according to my OB and Pediatrician).

I decided it was a cosmetic procedure and stood by that decision. My son now agrees with that decision which is the only thing important to me. If he wants to change things...he can have a surgeon do it under anesthesia and have pain medication for the healing process...unlike the newborn.

Do I agree with what this man did? Absolutely not! However, religion is going to play a role in this case and while I can disagree with certain practices/rituals...it will be up to the court to take into account if what this particular man did was illegal. Obviously, there was something that happened which allowed for charges against him.

Turn the tables for a moment and consider what we would be saying if it had been a female and the same man decided it was within his religion to cut out the clitoris of the baby girl with a boxcutter with no pain medication. This is a practice of certain tribes today. Would be we having the same conversation and arguments FOR his right to practice this?!

 

[Filly]

I'm confused. Did the boys develop an infection? I see it as no difference than when Moyel does it.

Circumcision is either abusive or it isn't

How about the moyels that gave them babies herpes? At a Bris which was attended by of course many people this moyel used his mouth and gave these babies herpes. Probably Hisidic Jews I'm thinking if I recall correctly. Not sure if I spelled Hisidic correctly, but I say that's abuse as opposed to it being done under sterile conditions in a hospital. Although I don't care how much they numb them babies. That gotta hurt.

 

[Filly]

Thought it O.K. to add this here to lighten the thread up a smidge. Xtina Aguilarrea (sic) has just had a Bris for her son. Her husband is Jewish and she is not. Supposedly she had balloons in the shape of penises as decorations. That's debatable. She explained to the interviewer that she is not Jewish and never really knew any Jewish people. The interviewer later added "She grew up in the music business and didn't know any Jewish people?" Impossible.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I'm wondering the same thing SCM. A medical degree is apparently not required. I would not want my husband to perform circumcision on my children but what is illegal about it?

Personally, I think all circumcision on infants is abuse but I don't see doctors being charged with it.

:clap: :clap: :clap: FINALLY! BRAVO!

 

[southcitymom]

......Turn the tables for a moment and consider what we would be saying if it had been a female and the same man decided it was within his religion to cut out the clitoris of the baby girl with a boxcutter with no pain medication. This is a practice of certain tribes today. Would be we having the same conversation and arguments FOR his right to practice this?!

The main difference between female clitorectomy and male circumcision is this - once the clitoris is removed, a female is, for all practical purposes, unable to have an orgasm. A circumcised male can have an orgasm - though his sexual pleasure is diminshed due to lack of foreskin, there's still a lot of pleasure left to be had.

When considering the issue, it is interesting to note that the penis and the clitoris start out as exactly the same thing in a human embryo.

My husband and I chose not to circumcise our sons and that decision was a no-brainer because the very thought horrified me and my husband is European. My experience is that most of my friends wanted their sons's penises to look like their husbands's penises.

I can't honestly say what I would have done had I married a cut man who wanted cut sons, so I don't throw stones at people who made a different choice for their sons.

I am glad now that the medical community is, more and more, realizing the procedure for what it is - a cosmetic choice.

All of my friends (and a sister) who chose to circumcise are loving parents who would never intentionally hurt their children and who were told that any discomfort the child might feel was mild and fleeting. Certainly experience tells us that the most male children survive the procedure without any negative, lasting results.

I think many folks don't even think about it - that's just what we do here. I'm glad to see that changing a little bit and I can foresee a time where circumcision is no longer standard operating procedure in the US.

 

[Kymistry35]

It's not always a cosmetic procedure. I have known lots of men and boys who had to have it done because of medical issues caused by an uncircumcised penis. My father had to have his done in his 40's and my sister's uncle in law had his done last week. A friend of mine had to have her son done at 4 years old. I have three boys who are circumcised and one who isn't. The one who isn't gets infections and irritation around the tip of his penis and the foreskin is so tight that he can't pull it back to clean it well. And men who are circumcised don't catch sexually transmitted diseases as quickly.

 

[Filly]

THis is interesting regarding law in New York and what could be done considering an infant died from herpes after it was contracted from this moyel. The infants twin got it as well and another child did as well. Can the State step in when an infant dies from a religious practice. Yes, I know this is not all moyels. These folks are Orthodox.http://volokh.com/posts/1125345741.shtml