An Associated Press story on an Oregon court case should be put in the "What were they thinking?" file. An Oregon mother has taken her ex-husband to court over her ex's desire to have their 12-year-old son circumcised. This is part of an 8-year-long custody battle. A new ruling has found in favor of the boy's right to have a say in the matter: The Oregon Supreme Court says the wishes of a 12-year-old boy must be determined in a dispute between his divorced parents over whether he should be circumcised. The father, who lives in Olympia, converted to Judaism in 2004 and wants the boy to be circumcised as part of the faith, saying the decision is best left to the custodial parent. Lower courts sided with the father. The mother, who lives in Oregon, appealed to the high court, asking for custody and saying the operation could harm her son physically and psychologically. The decision seems like a no-brainer to me. At that age, he should have a say. But I wonder: Have his parents considered the psychological scarring to their son by fighting for control of his penis in a messy, public court case? Next question: Who's going to pay the boy's shrink bills?