Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Norway's Progress Party calls for ban on circumcision for boys

jpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 207 posts

Re: Norway's Progress Party calls for ban on circumcision for boys

#31

Post by ythn »

grandalf wrote: post #25
ythn wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do does that mean all circumcised males are brainwashed and were all subjugated and deprived of rights as children?

> brainwashed No but the parents who did it may have been. > subjugated and deprived of rights as children Those who were mutilated without giving consent were harmed in a way that could be significant. I certainly would not consent to it as an adult.

> I certainly would not consent to it as an adult.

Nor would I. However, if I could go back in time and retroactively give my parents consent to do it when I wouldn't remember it, then I would.

Re: Norway's Progress Party calls for ban on circumcision for boys

#32

Post by Declanomous »

ythn wrote: post #19

This is one of those topics where people have extremely strong opinions, yet the vast majority of people affected by this practice (circumcised males) have no opinion or even a favorable opinion of their circumcision.

Do you have any any evidence to back that claim up?

Re: Norway's Progress Party calls for ban on circumcision for boys

#33

Post by Brotkrumen »

exhilaration wrote: post #8
spraak wrote: post #5

It's genital mutilation. There's no medical reason [1]. Yes, having a foreskin means you need to clean it regularly (or your caregiver if you're a baby). And then there are disgusting things like this [2]: > In a practice that takes place during a ceremony known as the bris, a circumcision practitioner, or mohel, removes the foreskin from the baby's penis, and with his mouth sucks the blood from the incision to clean…

I found a big exception to your blanket statements: There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be consi…

Thats for infection Rates of men during heterosexual intercourse. These are already low: https://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/resources/heterosexual-risk-...

So you'd be cutting the rate from 8 in 10000 acts to 3 in 10000. its something but theres probably more efficient ways.

Re: Norway's Progress Party calls for ban on circumcision for boys

#34

Post by feintruled »

ythn wrote: post #19

This is one of those topics where people have extremely strong opinions, yet the vast majority of people affected by this practice (circumcised males) have no opinion or even a favorable opinion of their circumcision.

And what are they comparing it to? They quite literally do not know what they are missing. It's not like they can have it replaced, so they have to make the best of it.

Any non-circumcised male could choose to undergo the process as adults, I don't hear of many takers.

Re: Norway's Progress Party calls for ban on circumcision for boys

#35

Post by oblio »

fiatjaf wrote: post #12
sidlls wrote: post #6

This is great. Genital mutilation is a wretched practice and should be abolished everywhere.

What if someone thinks you should be abolished and vote to do that democratically?

Let's see if we can make a sort of equivalence between your statements:

Him: wants to ban an act which is basically minor surgery performed (for no obvious medical benefit) on someone who is underage and can't refuse the operation.

You: want to hold a popular vote which would decide if he should be killed because of his opinion.

Re: Norway's Progress Party calls for ban on circumcision for boys

#36

Post by misterbowfinger »

EliRivers wrote: post #13
exhilaration wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found a big exception to your blanket statements: There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be consi…

I'm sure there are a lot of physical mutilations we could make to people that would reduce the chances of various diseases. Nonetheless, I think there's a moral issue in slicing up children (or adults) for this reason. Do our bodies belong to ourselves, to the government, to someone's god, or to the people around us? Not that I'm saying you're advocating it; just continuing the train of thought.

Nonetheless, I think there's a moral issue in slicing up children (or adults) for this reason. Do our bodies belong to ourselves, to the government, to someone's god, or to the people around us?

This feels like a platitude that overlooks the complexity of the issue. What rights do parents have over their children? Are they allowed to prescribe a religion? Are they allowed to prescribe a culture? Are they allowed to take their children to the hospital if they're sick?

Personally, I don't think male circumcision is that big of a deal, because it has little to no negative impact on a male child. Female circumcision, on the other hand, is different.

Re: Norway's Progress Party calls for ban on circumcision for boys

#37

Post by grandalf »

amscanne wrote: post #29
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the hell would someone pierce an infant's ears???

This is very common in Latin American cultures. In Mexico, they literally do it at the hospital before you leave. (They don't do this in the U.S., but a good portion of Latin Americans - I'd wager majority - will get it done at six months.)

While I would not do it to an infant, it's not a sex organ and will restore to fully healed/closed status if left alone for a few weeks, so it's hard to compare this to removing part of a sex organ that will not re-grow.

Re: Norway's Progress Party calls for ban on circumcision for boys

#38

Post by logfromblammo »

ythn wrote: post #19

This is one of those topics where people have extremely strong opinions, yet the vast majority of people affected by this practice (circumcised males) have no opinion or even a favorable opinion of their circumcision.

The only people whose opinions would hold any weight in this matter would be males who were circumcised by medical necessity as adults. In other words, people who have actual memories with which to form a basis for comparison, without psychological pressure to form an irrationally favorable or unfavorable opinion.

Re: Norway's Progress Party calls for ban on circumcision for boys

#39

Post by alistairSH »

EliRivers wrote: post #13
exhilaration wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found a big exception to your blanket statements: There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be consi…

I'm sure there are a lot of physical mutilations we could make to people that would reduce the chances of various diseases. Nonetheless, I think there's a moral issue in slicing up children (or adults) for this reason. Do our bodies belong to ourselves, to the government, to someone's god, or to the people around us? Not that I'm saying you're advocating it; just continuing the train of thought.

I'm sure there are a lot of physical mutilations we could make to people that would reduce the chances of various diseases.

Mastectomy or oophorectomy to avoid cancers in infants with BRCA1/2 mutations comes to mind.

Re: Norway's Progress Party calls for ban on circumcision for boys

#40

Post by grandalf »

ythn wrote: post #31
grandalf wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> brainwashed No but the parents who did it may have been. > subjugated and deprived of rights as children Those who were mutilated without giving consent were harmed in a way that could be significant. I certainly would not consent to it as an adult.

> I certainly would not consent to it as an adult. Nor would I. However, if I could go back in time and retroactively give my parents consent to do it when I wouldn't remember it, then I would.

Why not just go under anesthesia and have it done? You won't remember a thing!
Post reply on HN