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

#111

Post by vixen99 » Mon, May 08, 2017, 4:06 PM UTC

Mizza wrote: post #26

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…

> There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Saying there is evidence is not the same as evidence. AFAIK, this study was debunked because the result was not causal - it was that different class/cultural patterns among the sub-populations of the country were responsible, not the circumcision. But, there was already a massiv…

If only the contributors to this massive stream of funding had checked the debunking evidence you cite - oh, hold on . . .

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

#112

Post by Mithaldu » Mon, May 08, 2017, 4:06 PM UTC

moshei wrote: post #106

Mithaldu wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

( 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.

I suggest you look at this: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/ Using the term mutilation when it is most often used in that context is absurd.

Mutilation has a clear meaning in the dictionary and its application here is perfectly fine.

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

#113

Post by mickrussom » Mon, May 08, 2017, 4:06 PM UTC

moshei wrote: post #64

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…

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…

So if a girl gets FGM and doesnt cry its ok? Are you insane? So if one is induced with anesthesia and they cut your arm off its ok then? MGM = FGM, and you denied a child a choice when there was no immediate danger. I wish I had the choice. I had the cahones to let me son remain un-mutilated and if he dislikes it so much he can lop it off. Think for yourself. Question authority.

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

#114

Post by RightMillennial » Mon, May 08, 2017, 4:09 PM UTC

Mithaldu wrote: post #110

awicz wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Honest and serious questions: How do you rationalize changing your son's sexual function without his consent and despite the fact that it is possible to do the same procedure later in life, with zero mental and very little physical immediate trauma? To what extent did you go to educate yourself on that matter, given you have no personal experience?

Where did you get the idea that circumcision changes sexual function?

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

#115

Post by bluefox » Mon, May 08, 2017, 4:09 PM UTC

mmastrac wrote: post #2

I don't understand how parents are allowed to make major, irreversible, cosmetic medical decisions for children on their behalf. I'm not against circumcision, but it should be the choice of someone who is able to consent.

I too do not understand how parents can be allowed to force someone into existence without prior approval from said someone.

Their parentland (motherland or fatherland, though I suppose there may be other categories nowadays) should surely not allow them to do so.

Speaking of parentlands, why are they allowed to make major decisions for their childizens on their behalf? Even if some of the childizens approve, surely the others should be free to decide for themselves.

Unfortunately we cannot bring this issue to that parentless entity in charge, who has never had anyone else decide something on its behalf. It may in time decide to look into the matter and inform us of its decision.

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

#116

Post by quirkafleeg » Mon, May 08, 2017, 4:09 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…

> since they believe that this has huge ramifications for their child's life as a Jew, and if you read the Bible you can definitely see why

Is the argument here that if someone happens to believe in a particular practice (that impacts on somebody else's life), it should be completely off-limits and tolerated without question just because it appears in a religious text?

> why right away submit them to permanently changing into a transsexual? Yet the same progressives who argue against circumcision would argue for gender reassignment surgery.

Which "progressives" are arguing for babies to have gender reassignment surgery?

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

#117

Post by colbyh » Mon, May 08, 2017, 4:13 PM UTC

IgorPartola wrote: post #56

colbyh wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Categorically false. I have a newborn boy and talked to a number of doctors about it - there is actually a slight benefit to the circumcised child [1], it just isn't enough for the American Association of Pediatrics to recommend it outright. [1] https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages...

Perhaps. But like with most medical procedures there is risk vs reward. In this case the risk is a 100% chance of altering how your child's sex organs look and function without their knowledge or consent vs a small and dubious reward. In other words don't fucking do it because it is barbaric and evil. If you think it's not, ask an uncircumcised adult to have the procedure done for all the benefits it provides and see…

You're not even making rational arguments, you're vilifying a procedure you happen to dislike. The fact is that the entire medical community agrees there are benefits to either approach, so letting parents decide is the more reasonable stance here.

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

#118

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 08, 2017, 4:14 PM UTC

quirkafleeg wrote: post #116

EGreg wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> since they believe that this has huge ramifications for their child's life as a Jew, and if you read the Bible you can definitely see why Is the argument here that if someone happens to believe in a particular practice (that impacts on somebody else's life), it should be completely off-limits and tolerated without question just because it appears in a religious text? > why right away submit them to permanently chan…

[deleted]

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

#119

Post by awicz » Mon, May 08, 2017, 4:14 PM UTC

mickrussom wrote: post #105

awicz wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Confirmation bias. You will never know if the benefits outweigh the risks and you denied the kid the choice. I wish I had the choice. Mutilations cannot be reversed. You probably did it because - 1 it was done to you, 2 some custom from a desert 2000 years ago and 3 you wanted Jr. to "be like everyone else". I've heard all the reasons. Cut his middle finger off too so he can't flip the bird - that could save him from…

"You will never know if the benefits outweigh the risks... "

You're probably right. That's why it was a weighted decision based on the information available.

Your other points do not match the same model we used to make our decision. Flipping someone off or giving the middle finger is a choice that one can make, and later apologize for and move on. Penile cancer or many STDs do not fall into that category.

I'm surprised that this topic is even on HN, and even more so by the presumptive and emotional responses that clearly didn't read the post in its entirety. So, I don't think this is a conversation I will engage in any further.

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

#120

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 08, 2017, 4:14 PM UTC

mickrussom wrote: post #105

awicz wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Confirmation bias. You will never know if the benefits outweigh the risks and you denied the kid the choice. I wish I had the choice. Mutilations cannot be reversed. You probably did it because - 1 it was done to you, 2 some custom from a desert 2000 years ago and 3 you wanted Jr. to "be like everyone else". I've heard all the reasons. Cut his middle finger off too so he can't flip the bird - that could save him from…

[deleted]