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

91–100 of 207 posts

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

#91

Post by gotchange »

wyager wrote: post #77
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…

The same is true for female genital mutilation in certain Islamic cultures. I still don't think "it's culturally important" is a reasonable defense, and I doubt you do either. And just to cut off this objection, the vast majority of female circumcision involves removal of the clitoral hood, which is (mutatis mutandis) anatomically equivalent to removal of the foreskin and has similar effects and risks.

By the way, FGM is not an exclusively Islamic tradition in some Muslim-majority countries. There are certain non-Muslim African communities that engage in these awful practices.

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

#92

Post by logfromblammo »

RightMillennial wrote: post #80
grandalf wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Please, it's a little bit of skin. As with any other trivial procedure, as long as it is properly performed there are no adverse side effects.

The same argument could be used to support giving all infants face tattoos at the hospital.

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

#93

Post by MaxfordAndSons »

tarkin2 wrote: post #53
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…

Look up phimosis. At two minute Google search could have found this. It's a valid medical reason for the operation. Not to mention the above mentioned. Not only do your facts not hold up to a brief Google, but the reputation of the people suggesting this could have made you think twice. Twice about the possible motivations. And that could have given you again doubts. And calling it mutilation implies those who have a…

> And calling it mutilation implies those who have and want to have this engage in mutilation akin to FGM. It's irresponsible.

It is akin to FGM when it's done nonconsensually (which it is, in the vast majority of cases for both sexes). Disclaimer: I understand that FGM is much more sexually debilitating and AFAIK never has a medical need behind it, but victims of circumcision are also being (usually needlessly) deprived of a functional part of their sexual organ.

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

#94

Post by wyager »

claar wrote: post #69

Genesis 17:9-14 and Leviticus 12:1-3 do not give Jews any leeway in this practice. I may not be Jewish (though I am Christian and circumcised), and I realize my American values do not directly apply in Norway, but freedom of religion is a basic human right. Devout religious followers would have no choice but to "obey God rather than men", so laws like this proposed ban are simply a veiled authorization of persecution…

> freedom of religion is a basic human right.

Freedom of religion means the state can't tell you what to believe. It emphatically does not mean that you have carte-blanche authority to do whatever crazy stuff your religion asks you to do, including murdering infidels or performing cosmetic surgery on babies.

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

#95

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#96

Post by EGreg »

bluejekyll wrote: post #78
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…

No. Full stop. Just as with female genital mutilation, male genital mutilation should be banned. For religious purposes this proposal should fit: https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/fgm-compromise-n... That is a nick, not full mutilation.

That nick is the equivalent of male circumcision and is practiced by the Bohras, an Islamic sect. It makes a tiny incision for girls in the foreskin covering the clitoris and it is not clear that this reduces sexual pleasure in the future.

It is very far from FGM which removes the clitoris etc.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawoodi_Bohra

We have hundreds of years of data on Jewish males and how they fare after this operation at 8 days old, and it is not at all clear that they are medically or psychologically worse off than without it.

The fact that it is considered a requirement in the Jewish religion for membership in the Jewish people plays a major role in the phychological well being of the child and adult, and as the parent comment has said this needs to be considered!

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

#97

Post by moshei »

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.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mutilation

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

#98

Post by Mithaldu »

moshei wrote: post #97
moshei wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mutilation

( If you're responding quickly, click the time link to get a reply field. )

From the definition: "make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts" Cutting off the foreskin entirely fulfills that description.

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

#99

Post by jquery »

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…

I'm against circumcision but I can't deny you've made some of the most compelling points I've ever heard regarding the issue. If circumcision is so bad we'd expect poorer life outcomes for the victims of it. Instead we see the opposite.

Assuming the better life outcomes aren't just because of culutural values, I wonder if there are benefits to circumcision we simply don't have the scientific tools to measure.

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

#100

Post by Mithaldu »

misterbowfinger wrote: post #36
EliRivers wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> it has little to no negative impact on a male child.

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

Post reply on HN