Norway's Progress Party calls for ban on circumcision for boys • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by Mithaldu » Mon, May 08, 2017, 3:42 PM UTC

EGreg wrote: post #65

grandalf wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, some reasonable people think that genital mutilation is OK, because being reasonable does not guarantee moral clarity. This is why many reasonable people supported slavery and other abhorrent things. I can't believe anyone would allow someone to knife off part of their child's genitals (even with anesthesia). Maybe if the procedure involved branding the Playboy logo into the genitalia (with anesthesia) it…

Nearly every Jewish male has underwent circumcision at 8 days old, and they have gone on to lead productive and very fulfilling sexual lives. Many Muslims do it as well. That is probably hundreds of millions of people right there. Plus we have hundreds of years over which to know if such a procedure had adverse effects and the incidence rates. I agree with you that if these people were all atheists then they should p…

Nearly every person who works a manual job and loses a finger went on to have a productive and fulfilling career.

Doesn't mean they wouldn't have preferred to keep it.

> Plus we have hundreds of years over which to know if such a procedure had adverse effects and the incidence rates.

Really? Please link a study, published in a respectable publication, that compares physical and subjective sex performance parameters of the two type of men.

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

#82

Post by Boothroid » Mon, May 08, 2017, 3:43 PM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #51

Boothroid wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. And last time I checked Jewish people have a place to live that is violently protective of their way of life, namely Israel.

Muslims also perform male circumcision it's called Khitan.

The article is about Jews/Israel:

'Regarding the Norwegian bill, Margolin said: “We will act in every way we can to fight this disgraceful bill... There is no doubt that this is an anti-Jewish decision that is blatantly antisemitic, because the bill does not harm Muslims who are not obligated to circumcise their children as infants and can perform the procedure even at an older ages as the bill allows.”'

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

#83

Post by bluejekyll » Mon, May 08, 2017, 3:44 PM UTC

Boothroid wrote: post #79

bluejekyll wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't make this about any specific religion's practices. That wasn't exactly my point. Only that the welfare of the child should trump religion. In the US there is also a practice that all? hospitals offer this practice as just an additional procedure after birth. This should be stopped, and that is non-religious, it's almost worse because it's nearly thoughtless.

Hang on a minute - the article is explicitly about Jews/Israel!!! 'Jewish leader urges Israel to exert political influence in fight for religious freedom in Europe.'

Yes. I know the article is about that. I'm saying my comment, and I think the discussion should focus on the welfare of the child over the discussions of particular religions.

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

#84

Post by wyager » Mon, May 08, 2017, 3:44 PM UTC

bluejekyll wrote: post #7

We tried this in San Francisco and it gets dragged into some crazy anti-religious fight. It's about the rights of the baby, not about some religion's outdated beliefs. Children should be free of mutilation, regardless of their religion.

While I probably agree with your views on religious beliefs, if the goal is to get rid of these kinds of practices, off-handedly insulting people's beliefs probably won't convince them. It will just put them on the defensive.

The best rhetorical approach here is probably to hammer home the fact that, by performing extensive and life-changing cosmetic surgery on a baby, you are violating their rights. This avoids impugning the parents' motives, which they are (for lack of a less abrasive word) aggressively programmed to defend.

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

#85

Post by moshei » Mon, May 08, 2017, 3:44 PM UTC

Mithaldu wrote: post #71

moshei wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling this mutilation is absurd, I am circumcised and so is my son - it was way more traumatic for me seeing, then it was for him feeling t - many babies do not even cry. I suggest you do a little more research on what genital mutilation really means in the 3rd world, circumcision is no worse than some injections by comparison. There is a very valid medical reason for this - it prevents sexually transmitted disease…

That link had already been posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14292131 Also, whether something is mutilation or not is about more than how much it hurts when it's done. In this case a child is deprived of a part of their body that performs a clear biological function.

I would disagree that the foreskin performs an essential biological function, and by the dictionary definition that would not make it mutilation.

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

#86

Post by gotchange » Mon, May 08, 2017, 3:45 PM UTC

pugio wrote: post #62

Let's add some nuance: Circumcision, for (orthodox) Jews, is one of the most fundamental conditions for identification and belonging to that group. Leaving a Jewish male baby uncircumcised would most likely lead to feelings of alienation and isolation later on in life – feelings which could have significant psychological impact and could largely negate the benefits one gains from strong communal structures. Regardles…

I have a circumcised penis and I am not Jewish. Reducing the Jewish identity to having your penis circumcised is just flawed as it naturally excludes Jewish women.

Jewish males can still have their private parts circumcised when they become adult as it was supposed to be the case, a rite of passage for getting into the adult world.

Most of your rebuttal is centered around a "slippery-slope" argument and it is not convincing enough.

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

#87

Post by logfromblammo » Mon, May 08, 2017, 3:45 PM UTC

grandalf wrote: post #37

amscanne wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In for a penny; in for a pound.

The principle is the same. The hospital should not be doing so much as trimming a fingernail of any patient incapable of giving informed consent, in the absence of a true medical necessity.

In the case of the ear-piercings, it is likely that the local cultural landscape is such that if the procedure is not performed in a sterile and controlled environment, by professional medical personnel, at the hospital, it would be done by amateurs at home. The medical necessity there may be the significant probability of botched, infected piercings. As a public health strategy, it isn't bad. Do the piercings at the hospital for two generations, and then ramp up the out-of-pocket cost for it, while vilifying it with a PR campaign.

Babies should still not be having their ears pierced, though. That is certainly of lesser severity than cutting off and throwing away more significant bits of the baby, leaving a permanent, visible scar there, but it is on the same spectrum. You are performing unnecessary procedures on a patient that cannot give consent.

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

#88

Post by jbtule » Mon, May 08, 2017, 3:47 PM UTC

EGreg wrote: post #65

grandalf wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, some reasonable people think that genital mutilation is OK, because being reasonable does not guarantee moral clarity. This is why many reasonable people supported slavery and other abhorrent things. I can't believe anyone would allow someone to knife off part of their child's genitals (even with anesthesia). Maybe if the procedure involved branding the Playboy logo into the genitalia (with anesthesia) it…

Nearly every Jewish male has underwent circumcision at 8 days old, and they have gone on to lead productive and very fulfilling sexual lives. Many Muslims do it as well. That is probably hundreds of millions of people right there. Plus we have hundreds of years over which to know if such a procedure had adverse effects and the incidence rates. I agree with you that if these people were all atheists then they should p…

Liberal progressives are totally fine with the child having a choice? That's the point you are making. Also outside of medical reasons, gender reassignment surgery standard of care is to wait until the age of majority. So 18 sounds about right.

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

#89

Post by awicz » Mon, May 08, 2017, 3:47 PM UTC

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…

According to the Mayo Clinic there are multiple medical benefits to circumcision [1]

To address some of the other points here, I can only give a anecdotal example from my own experience. My wife and I decided to have our son circumcised and not because of religious reasons, but rather because of those listed in the referenced article, among others--and after much condsideration. At the end of the day we decided that the benefits outweighed the risks.

As far as who should have the choice of this procedure, ideally it would be the individual on whom the procedure is being performed. However, the procedure and pain as an adult would certainly be more memorable. My parents made the choice to circumcise me when I was an infant--I'm glad they did because I don't remember any associated pain or discomfort.

I think that there should be more discourse over this parental choice. If parents are making these decisions for mere aesthetic or ritualistic reasons then that is a problem. However, labeling circumcision as 'genital mutilation' across the board is not accurate. There are advantages and disadvantages that should be weighed carefully.

[1] http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/basi...

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

#90

Post by Mithaldu » Mon, May 08, 2017, 3:48 PM UTC

moshei wrote: post #85

Mithaldu wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That link had already been posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14292131 Also, whether something is mutilation or not is about more than how much it hurts when it's done. In this case a child is deprived of a part of their body that performs a clear biological function.

I would disagree that the foreskin performs an essential biological function, and by the dictionary definition that would not make it mutilation.

I said clear, not essential. Your pinky finger also does not perform an essential biological function, i.e. you can keep on living without it. But it performs a clear one, providing more grip strength and options.

Please link to the dictionary definition you're using.