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

171–180 of 207 posts

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

#171

Post by jquery »

Mithaldu wrote: post #167
jquery wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pondered it a little, and i think you might be misreading some people unintentionally. Maybe you mentally match FGM to mutilation as a whole, which most people don't, and react to them as if they did? Note how something can be in the same class as something else, but have a much lower degree of impact. When someone says mutilated they may not necessarily be thinking "horrifically" or "barely functional". Heck, many p…

Mutilation is a word with strong and harsh connotations. How would someone with a facial birthmark react if people said their face was mutilated? It's hurtful rhetoric largely unbacked by adult comparative sexual studies.

Edit: can't reply, but I think you're being uncharitable by saying I'm overreacting to the word "mutilation" because it's technically correct by the dictionary definition. We don't describe people with earrings or tattoos as mutilated unless we intend to insult them or the practice.

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

#172

Post by Mithaldu »

EGreg wrote: post #170
Mithaldu wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're moving the goal posts. Your claim was about productive and fulfilling lives and the implication that circumcision does not impair that. Regret doesn't factor into that and is a separate issue. Clearly you can have productive and fulfilling lives with or without regrets. Whether the lack of regrets is rational or merely a self-defense mechanism of the person's mind is another question.

The goal posts have been set by the original issue: whether circumcision harms the person or benefits them. The main people who can answer that are adult males who were circumcized. I am confident that if you asked 1000 religious Orthodox Jewish men whether they would have preferred to NOT have been circumcized at 8 days old and instead had to choose it later, an overwhelming majority would say they were glad they we…

You know what, i could say a lot of words, but really, i tire of it. You sound like the former marines i know who defend newbie hazing as noble and necessary. Much the same back and forth applies in both cases, and i really do not want to repeat discussions i've had multiple times already.

I'd be happy to read that study i asked for at the start though.

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

#173

Post by Mithaldu »

jquery wrote: post #171
Mithaldu wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pondered it a little, and i think you might be misreading some people unintentionally. Maybe you mentally match FGM to mutilation as a whole, which most people don't, and react to them as if they did? Note how something can be in the same class as something else, but have a much lower degree of impact. When someone says mutilated they may not necessarily be thinking "horrifically" or "barely functional". Heck, many p…

Mutilation is a word with strong and harsh connotations. How would someone with a facial birthmark react if people said their face was mutilated? It's hurtful rhetoric largely unbacked by adult comparative sexual studies. Edit: can't reply, but I think you're being uncharitable by saying I'm overreacting to the word "mutilation" because it's technically correct by the dictionary definition. We don't describe people w…

> facial birthmark react if people said their face was mutilated

That is not what mutilation means though. Like, literally not. Check the dictionary. You saying that just drives the point home that you're mapping a meaning onto it that is not intended by the other side.

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

#174

Post by GordonS »

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…

> 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.

According to the Torah you should be stoned to death for merely breaking the Sabbath, and a murder victim's family members should be permitted to kill the murderer - and yet Judaism has modernised, recognising these acts as barbaric. Maybe Judaism needs to modernise a bit more, and allow children to grow up and make their own choices regarding the mutilation of their bodies.

Should people with religious beliefs really be able to mutilate their children in the name of their beliefs, however 'benign' that mutiliation is seen to be?

I don't see the problem with allowing children to grow into adulthood, decide for themselves what, if any, religion they want to follow - and make their own choice about how, if at all, to mutilate their bodies?

I understand that there are hundreds of years of tradition involved, but you could say the same about plenty of practices that are frowned upon or outlawed, so I don't think that argument stands up on its own.

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

#175

Post by GordonS »

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…

> Genesis 17:9-14 and Leviticus 12:1-3 do not give Jews any leeway in this practice. > ... > laws like this proposed ban are simply a veiled authorization of persecution.

Leviticus 20:27 says it's OK to stone mediums to death - should this be lawful too, or would it also be persecution?

You can take freedom of religion too far - the books of the bible were written rather a long time ago. Judaism has been able to modernise regarding such things as being stoned to death for merely breaking Sabbath, so maybe it needs to modernise a bit more regarding mutilating children?

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

#176

Post by GordonS »

ythn wrote: post #14

Should we also ban the piercing of infant ears?

Absolutely, yes. I've honestly never understood why on earth parents would do this to their children, rather than letting them make the choice for themselves when they reach adulthood.

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

#178

Post by GordonS »

RightMillennial wrote: post #68
Declanomous wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Here's one data point to back up ythn. I was circumcised as an infant. I'm glad my father chose to have the procedure done so that I didn't have to go through the uncomfortable recovery period as an adult. I would have done it regardless for religious reasons with the medical reason as a bonus. If I have any sons, they will be circumcised as infants. That being said, I don't care whether you are or if your sons are c…

> I do care if you infringe on the rights of parents to do what they think is best for their children whether it's for medical, cultural, or religious reasons

Serious question: how far should that be allowed to go? What if someone believes cutting off their child's earlobe is best for their child (for the sake of an example)?

As I see it, religious freedom does not mean you get to do whatever you want with no comeback.

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

#179

Post by jquery »

Mithaldu wrote: post #156
jquery wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Same argument could be used for vaccination.

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

#180

Post by fiatjaf »

Brotkrumen wrote: post #168
hamandcheese wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the parent is just pointing out that the outrage seems a bit disproportionate. There are far more damaging things a parent can do that most people accept, whereas the actual effect circumcision has on your life is basically zero.

If that's the argument, I'm not convinced. We as a society try to influence the saner parts of what parent mentioned, such as values and pox parties. Passing on genes, well we generally don't want to prevent that, because, contrary to forbidding circumcision, the cure would be worse than the disease.

> contrary to forbidding circumcision

That's the part when you introduce your values and your judgement and try to make it sound as if everybody agrees.

Post reply on HN