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

151–160 of 207 posts

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

#151

Post by [deleted] »

awicz wrote: post #89
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…

[deleted]

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

#152

Post by bryondowd »

mickrussom wrote: post #107
tarkin2 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

MGM (circumcision) = FGM. You can lie to yourself and others but the person being mutilated is being denied a choice when their lives are not in danger.

I'm not aware of any adult women in a free society choosing to be mutilated, whereas it isn't uncommon for adult men to choose to be circumcised. That would seem to indicate that there is indeed a difference.

FGM is evil, plain and simple. MGM/circumcision has interesting points on both sides, and while there might be a stronger argument against it than for, it's not strong enough to be a hill I'd choose to die on. But to each their own, I suppose.

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

#153

Post by jquery »

Mithaldu wrote: post #146
jquery wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds great, but you might be overselling it considering adults who have undergone circumcision for non-health reasons largely don't report loss of sexual pleasure (some do, some report greater pleasure). And there's also the fact if you're circ'd as a baby the brain has decades to adapt, and that's where the pleasure actually is in the first place.

I'm not overselling it since i did not attach a price tag. I said a change, not how much of a change. And yeah, i can entirely see how different people might not give a damn about any of this. Some might even benefit. Men who're not very sensitive would have more fun without the foreskin and the direct stimulation and might not even notice the loss of the nerves in the foreskin, men with very active glands might not…

Fair enough. I conflated your post with the ones comparing it to FGM Type II, talking as if circ'd penises are horrifically mutilated and barely functional.

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

#154

Post by jquery »

Mithaldu wrote: post #133
jquery wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Jews having outsized outcomes in life is pretty well settled. If you're asking for a double blind study I don't have one, but I'm hesitant to throw away thousands of years of tradition. There's a lot of things in life we think we understand well but it just ain't so. Maybe circumcision reduces sex drive in men allowing them to pursue higher goals. Maybe it frees up an important part of the brain for other gen…

> I think Jews having outsized outcomes in life is pretty well settled. This is not meaningful unless you control for social circumstances. Also, for now, all i'm asking you to do is only state things you can substantiate, and state them exactly and clearly.

I think it's on the people who want to ban a tradition going back thousands of years to clearly demonstrate harms.

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

#155

Post by [deleted] »

RightMillennial wrote: post #114
Mithaldu wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

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

#156

Post by Mithaldu »

jquery wrote: post #154
Mithaldu wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think Jews having outsized outcomes in life is pretty well settled. This is not meaningful unless you control for social circumstances. Also, for now, all i'm asking you to do is only state things you can substantiate, and state them exactly and clearly.

I think it's on the people who want to ban a tradition going back thousands of years to clearly demonstrate harms.

There is a clear and very simple harm in:

This thing can operate in various fashions. Unmodified it works like this, modified it works in another way. Leave it as is and there's the option for both at any point. Make the decision now and one of the options is forever gone.

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

#157

Post by alistairSH »

EGreg wrote: post #130
grandalf wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those benefits go away if we wait until the person being cut is old enough to understand what is going to happen and to consent for it.

Yes they do. It's far harder to agree to do it later. And it is necessary for membership in the Israelite Nation, according to the Bible. Which means it will have huge ramifications for the person in terms of marriage, children and their whole life. Ask 1000 men born to Orthodox Jewish parents whether they regret being circumcized. And ask 1000 Orthodox Jewish men who were not circumcized whether they wish they had b…

Does the same logic apply to female genital mutilation is societies where that has been acceptable for eons?

Is your standard for acceptable mutilation really "it isn't noticeably harmful"?

What if my religion calls for the removal of a single testicle instead of the foreskin - is that ok? Afterall, men with one testicle can still father children and lead productive lives.

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

#158

Post by RightMillennial »

DanBC wrote: post #139
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 from harm trumps freedom of religion. This law is not incompatible with freedom of religion.

And circumcision is not incompatible with "freedom from harm" because it is not harmful. Therefore, this is a law that needlessly restricts freedom of religion.

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

#159

Post by carsongross »

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…

It is insane that we don't regard it as such.

I'm circumcised, as are my boys. I assumed it was for sound medical reasons. When I found out it wasn't, I was, and I am, furious.

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

#160

Post by threatofrain »

RightMillennial wrote: post #114
Mithaldu wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Have you ever facilitated masturbation with another male? The interface changes in an interesting way when you remove the foreskin. Also, have you ever tried putting your tongue or finger into a man's foreskin? Or have you tried docking?

These are all interesting changes!

Before people say that these activities are boring, and why would anyone ever want to try, I suggest watching a few videos on foreskin play in both gay and heterosexual contexts.

Post reply on HN