Live data from Hacker News

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

jpost.com

181–190 of 207 posts

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

#181
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…

"but freedom of religion is a basic human right"

Only until it infringes on someone else's rights and freedoms. At that point, it's violence. That's what circumcision is. If you wish to argue that anything should be allowed for any religion, then we have to accept a world that tolerates rape, human sacrifice and mass suicides, just to name a few religious practices that your argument would allow. But if we had that kind of religious freedom, at least we'd be able to take whatever drugs we all wanted to forget about all the stupidity going on around us in the name of religious freedom. Let's face it, religious freedom is a thinly veiled argument for allowing people to do fucked up shit that would otherwise be unacceptable justifying those actions. Since religion can justify any and all horrible human actions, it's basically an argument for allowing one to do whatever one wants without fear of retribution by appealing to unverifiable nonsense.

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

#182
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 surpri…

"So, I don't think this is a conversation I will engage in any further." Confirmation on being called out on confirmation bias confirmed.

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

#183
post #35
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if someone thinks you should be abolished and vote to do that democratically?

Let's see if we can make a sort of equivalence between your statements: Him: wants to ban an act which is basically minor surgery performed (for no obvious medical benefit) on someone who is underage and can't refuse the operation. You: want to hold a popular vote which would decide if he should be killed because of his opinion.

I know, it is absurd, that's the whole point of reductio ad absurdum.

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

#184
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not an argument, it's an assertion, one that does not address any points made above.

Yes, I make the assertion that all people, including defenseless babies, should be free from harm. Now, the nick I leave as a compromise, b/c I do understand that this is a fundamental requirement of the religion as it is followed. This allows for religious practice to be followed with out mutilating the child.

A nick is harm. Either you compromise your morals or you don't. If you do make allowances for other concerns (ie. religious practice), then you're debating degree, not kind.

Also, while a nick _may_ work for certain religions, it serves zero purpose for Judaic circumcision, and would actually be forbidden as unnecessary harm.

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

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 comebac…

Look at his posting history for today. He's just trolling.

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

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 comebac…

I think the line should be drawn where a practice causes real harm to children.

While I find the idea of cutting off the earlobe repulsive, I don't think it sufficiently crosses the line of harm. For all I know this could be a legitimate practice by some obscure tribe.

Finally, no one says religious freedom means you can do whatever the hell you want without any repercussions. That's a gross mischaracterization of it.

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

#187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 comebac…

Look at his posting history for today. He's just trolling.

No. I am not trolling. I am merely expressing my point of view which happens to run contrary to a majority of HN users. One could easily say you are trolling in this particular thread based upon your comments today. Your "Stockholm syndrome" comment is golden.

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

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. B…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genital_modification_and_mutil...

These elective surgeries have no relation to what is typically referred to as FGM, but perhaps I should have been more clear.

I was referring to Types I-III as described here:

http://www.endfgm.eu/female-genital-mutilation/what-is-fgm/

Those are very clearly wrong, with no redeeming value and cause a great deal of harm to the woman, beyond any subjectivity. Nobody is signing up to have this done to them for aesthetic reasons. Compared to this, circumcision is only low-moderately invasive and damaging. If you are going to argue against circumcision, do so on its own merits, not by comparing it to something far worse.

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

#189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genital_modification_and_mutil...

These elective surgeries have no relation to what is typically referred to as FGM, but perhaps I should have been more clear. I was referring to Types I-III as described here: http://www.endfgm.eu/female-genital-mutilation/what-is-fgm/ Those are very clearly wrong, with no redeeming value and cause a great deal of harm to the woman, beyond any subjectivity. Nobody is signing up to have this done to them for aesthetic…

Things can be in the same class but with different grades of strength within that class.

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

#190
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No. The entire medical community does not agree. The argument that risk vs reward should be considered and the reward does not actually outweigh the risk is, to me, a pretty reasonable argument. No I don't like the procedure, any more than I like female circumcision or any other form of genital mutilation.

Especially in the US, circumcision is popular not because of any supposed health benefits, and not because of any religious reasons, but simply because it was initially popularized as a part of an anti-masturbation campaign hard fought by John Kellogg and his comrades (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg). In the modern world it has nothing to do with cleanliness or health. It is a savage and barbaric tradition passed down from generation to generation. Thankfully, the numbers are now starting to come down as people realize that taking a knife to their newborn sons' genitals is probably not a nice thing to do.

Post reply on HN