Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Infants' sense of pain is recognized, finally (1987)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 387 posts

Re: Infants' sense of pain is recognized, finally (1987)

#351

Post by lelanthran »

natroniks wrote: post #302
lelanthran wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I grappled with the decision to have brises for my sons. I don't think it's possible to know or define how traumatic such a procedure is; is it worse than giving a 6-month old pierced ears? Yes, the foreskin doesn't grow back > Is it worse than travelling through the birth canal and having your umbilical cord severed? Yes, because travelling through the birth canal is required to live, and doesn't affect sex in lat…

> Yes, the foreskin doesn't grow back Lip and tongue ties don't grow back. Neither do teeth. Parents remove their kids' body parts if they think it's best for them. Are straight teeth healthy or just aesthetically pleasing? Is clear speech healthy or just valued in our culture? > Yes, because travelling through the birth canal is required to live, and doesn't affect sex in later life. Also, it doesn't result in any a…

> 'm suggesting that we consider not everything that seems obvious is in fact obvious.

Sure, but if you make extraordinary claims, then you have to provide extraordinary evidence. A claim of "amputation is no severe than drawing blood" is an excessively extraordinary claim, and you have yet to provide any evidence.

> I think we agree. As I said, it should be easy to talk about and yet there are multiple factors one must weigh. This makes it compicated, but I'm happy we're talking about it.

What factors? There's only one I am aware of - superstition.

> So I would be fascinated to understand the opposite position, which you put forth, that circumcised men get less joy from sex.

This isn't actually under contention, unless you contend that less feeling during sex is better.

Besides, for at least 3 decades there's been a ton of papers correlating ED with circumcision.

The only people "just asking the question" are those who are not happy with the answers we already have. We already have the answers, we already have the research, it's a very widely researched thing due to the large number of amputations performed.

You may not like the answers, but they're out there, and they've been validated.

Now ...

You are proposing it as a fairly harmless procedure, you should be providing evidence that there is no harm. It is both unscientific and primitive to make claims and ask others to disprove them.

The fact that you are ignoring much of the evidence that is already well-known and then you go on to compare lifelong mutilation for a superstitious belief to a temporary pain with no negative permanent effect makes it seem that you are willfully deluding yourself.

Circumcised men get less joy from sex. The only credible reports we have from consenting adults are those who get circumcised as adults, and the large majority did indeed get less joy from sex. A significant minority suffer from ED. A small minority never have sex again.

Re: Infants' sense of pain is recognized, finally (1987)

#352

Post by lelanthran »

natroniks wrote: post #322
lotsofpulp wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm suggesting that we consider not everything that seems obvious is in fact obvious. Should I keep my kid from having routine blood drawn or vaccination because the needle hurts? Stop clipping their nails or cutting their hair? These are all cultural practices, there's nothing intrinsically good about grooming in this way. How could one have raised 3 kids and write there is nothing intrinsically good about clippin…

I'm not trolling. I'm trying to give examples of different degrees of mutilation to understand where circumcision fits on the scale of "accepted body alteration" and "unacceptable body alteration." Is circumcising a newborn much different from having orthodontics placed in an 12 year old's mouth? That is, dental work that is done for purely aesthetic purposes. Or what about a frenectomy on a baby, or a toddler? While…

> I'm trying to give examples of different degrees of mutilation to understand where circumcision fits on the scale of "accepted body alteration" and "unacceptable body alteration."

We aren't talking about temporary and reversible body alterations, we're talking about amputations.

Amputated parts don't grow back.

Re: Infants' sense of pain is recognized, finally (1987)

#353

Post by natroniks »

jl6 wrote: post #343
natroniks wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole point of circumcision is to control the actions of the person later in life. How so? According to Judaism, the whole point of circumcision is to bear the mark of the promise between God and Abraham. But if you ask me, a modern non-orthodox Jew, circumcision is a rite of passage just like Communion, or Bar Mitzvahs, or any other non-natural step in growing up. It's different for everyone and no one has ask…

> > The whole point of circumcision is to control the actions of the person later in life. > How so? … Circumcision in Judaism is a physical and indelible representation of our belonging to a community You ask how circumcision controls a person, and you have provided the answer. The indelibility robs the person of the agency to choose not to belong to that community. Could they leave anyway? Sure, the same way a pers…

> The indelibility robs the person of the agency to choose not to belong to that community.

Most males born in the US are circumcised regardless of religious affiliation. It's not like circumcision alone makes someone part of the Jewish community. As I revealed earlier, I am a circumcised Jew, but What authority is controlling me? I am free to observe (or not) Jewish practices and traditions as I deem fit. Now having a US passport, or a driver's license, or a mortgage, or student loan debt? Those definitely place me under under control (financial or otherwise) of an authority. Being circumcised? I don't see how or by whom I am controlled.

> Could they leave anyway? Sure, the same way a person with gang tattoos can leave the gang.

Comparing membership of Jewish to membership of a gang seems pretty judgey. Maybe you're just anti-religion, and that's cool, but lets not compare Judaism, a world religion with thousands of years of history, to a gang. Unless you think all Christians also belong to a gang? Or like the vast majority of the world?

Re: Infants' sense of pain is recognized, finally (1987)

#354

Post by epgui »

anon291 wrote: post #334
epgui wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may or may not be different, because there are many places you could arbitrarily draw a line along the development continuum, but drawing the line after the "infant" stage was rather ridiculous. Just to be clear, the fetal stage is defined arbitrarily as being between week 9 and week 40. The ability to feel pain, along with minimal consciousness, starts around week 30. There is very literally a continuum from "two…

> these are exceptional cases The question wasn't about whether they're exceptional or not. It was... do we anesthesize these exceptional fetuses before killing them? The CDC says there are about 5000 exceptional fetuses every year. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/ss/ss6907a1.htm

I would think that would be an excellent idea, and with a very large margin for error on gestational age.

Re: Infants' sense of pain is recognized, finally (1987)

#355

Post by natroniks »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #340
natroniks wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe a child should have the power to decide what happens to their body even at a young age? What if a 6 year old wants to get a permanent tattoo? Or a middle schooler wants a subcutaneous horn implanted on the forehead to look cool? Or a toddler refuses medical treatment? I doubt that's what you mean. Maybe you mean a parent and child should decide together? I don't think a child has the capacity to make,…

That is a different discussion about what age a person gains autonomy for altering their body, and it gets into nuances such as what kind alterations at what age. But that is neither here nor there about this discussion, which is someone making an alteration to someone else’s body with zero medical benefit to the someone else.

What is the medical benefit of a frenectomy? Or of braces? Tooth extraction to straighten one's teeth? Removing a mole? The list goes on. Procedures are performed on kids because parents think it will give them a happier life. Not everything in this world is based on measurable, medical benefits.

Re: Infants' sense of pain is recognized, finally (1987)

#356

Post by natroniks »

lelanthran wrote: post #351
natroniks wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, the foreskin doesn't grow back Lip and tongue ties don't grow back. Neither do teeth. Parents remove their kids' body parts if they think it's best for them. Are straight teeth healthy or just aesthetically pleasing? Is clear speech healthy or just valued in our culture? > Yes, because travelling through the birth canal is required to live, and doesn't affect sex in later life. Also, it doesn't result in any a…

> 'm suggesting that we consider not everything that seems obvious is in fact obvious. Sure, but if you make extraordinary claims, then you have to provide extraordinary evidence. A claim of "amputation is no severe than drawing blood" is an excessively extraordinary claim, and you have yet to provide any evidence. > I think we agree. As I said, it should be easy to talk about and yet there are multiple factors one m…

> A claim of "amputation is no severe than drawing blood" is an excessively extraordinary claim, and you have yet to provide any evidence.

I keep returning to the same examples, but there are many "amputations" performed for non-medical benefits. Frenectomy; tooth extraction; mole/skin tag removal. I don't know if circumcision fits somewhere on this scale, I think it does, many believe it is of a different nature. I don't see how removing connective tissues in the mouth is any less injurious than removing connective tissues from the genitals. They both sound bad on paper, but in life this is a common occurrence with benefits (real or perceived seems to be up for debate)

> This isn't actually under contention, unless you contend that less feeling during sex is better.

I'm asking you genuinely how someone can tell. Is my kid going to enjoy food less just because his tongue tie is removed? I had a painful skin tag removed from my back, so yea I suppose I'm less sensitive there now but in a good way; it is less painful taking a shirt on and off. I am not making a broad based claim, I'm saying on an individual scale I've not suffered diminished sexual pleasure.

> You are proposing it as a fairly harmless procedure, you should be providing evidence that there is no harm. Ok, I think every male in my family is evidence that you can get circumcised and no ill effects come from it. No infections; no ED; no pain. It'd be fascinating to find data on ED etc in Jews compared to the rest of the world. I can't find anything, but if you can, please share.

> lifelong mutilation for a superstitious belief to a temporary pain with no negative permanent effect Is it not possible for both to be true? Lifelong mutilation to fulfill a belief can involve temporary pain with no negative permanent effect. I'm suggesting circumcision is just that. Are these necessarily contradictory?

> Circumcised men get less joy from sex. The only credible reports we have from consenting adults are those who get circumcised as adults, and the large majority did indeed get less joy from sex. A significant minority suffer from ED. A small minority never have sex again.

I'm not debating adult circumcision, we have to agree that is of a different nature than adult circumcision. Just like so many other procedures that have different risks/outcomes as an infant vs as an adult.

I'm not convinced me that circumcision is barbaric. If you are someone who believes a child cannot make their own informed decisions about their body, but that a parent is also not in a position to make such decisions, then you seem to be arguing that kids shouldn't have anything done to their body. Unless you're proposing there should be a committee or something to make decisions for kids? That seems kind of fascist though.

Re: Infants' sense of pain is recognized, finally (1987)

#357

Post by verisimi »

trasz wrote: post #323
verisimi wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

Same way the fact that someone needs an organ transplant doesn’t result in forcing anyone to donate said organ. Even if fetuses were people, it wouldn’t be a proper argument to force anyone to donate their uterus.

We are not talking about a uterus! Or an organ from a person who is dead. We are talking about a mother and a foetus.

The foetus is nascent life. Also, the foetus and the mother separate - and become different people - everyone was a foetus once. No one is disputing this! Or are you?

A mother/woman plainly feels pain, and in this study, it states that babies do too. (I didn't need the study to tell me this, but whatever.) Its not a big step (for me) to imagine that foetuses feel pain too. Nor that they do not want to die - they would have a will to live. Do you dispute any of this?

No one is saying the mother needs to 'donate her uterus' whatever that means. The mother keeps the uterus - there is no loss. The loss is entirely with the foetus' - it has no choice and losses its life in what must probably be a very painful way.

None of that seems really debatable to me.

Re: Infants' sense of pain is recognized, finally (1987)

#358

Post by lotsofpulp »

natroniks wrote: post #355
lotsofpulp wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a different discussion about what age a person gains autonomy for altering their body, and it gets into nuances such as what kind alterations at what age. But that is neither here nor there about this discussion, which is someone making an alteration to someone else’s body with zero medical benefit to the someone else.

What is the medical benefit of a frenectomy? Or of braces? Tooth extraction to straighten one's teeth? Removing a mole? The list goes on. Procedures are performed on kids because parents think it will give them a happier life. Not everything in this world is based on measurable, medical benefits.

As I wrote, I have not researched those procedures.

But the same reasoning would apply. You should not alter someone else’s body for cosmetic reasons without their permission.

Re: Infants' sense of pain is recognized, finally (1987)

#359

Post by momenti »

Kaze404 wrote: post #345
momenti wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even a few days or weeks after the mutilation the consequences are extremely minor. It is a very low-priority issue.

So the idea is that not consented mutilation is defensible as long as the consequences after a few days or weeks are extremely minor? Just repeating this back to you so we're on the same page.

That would be an out-of-context quote.

I'd say that attempting to prohibit this tradition has a net negative impact on the integrity and functioning of society because the harm in question is very minor but the reaction to such an attempt will be major. I'm sure you are trying to twist this into "but then I could anesthetize and then circumcise you", however, in that case I'd retaliate so drastically that it would negatively impact the functioning of society much more than say 100 circumcisions, hypothetically speaking.

Re: Infants' sense of pain is recognized, finally (1987)

#360

Post by asiachick »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #140
asiachick wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

smell being good/bad seems to me to be learned? Go to Taiwan and smell stinky tofu 臭豆腐. To most non-Taiwanese it smells like cat poop or sewer water. Eating it as a non-fan feels like I'm eating in a dirty public restroom where the food itself doesn't taste bad but the smell from the over full toilet next to me is off putting. Similarly shrimp paste. Many cheeses also smell pretty bad. All of them stop smelling so ba…

> smell being good/bad seems to me to be learned? Go to Taiwan and smell stinky tofu 臭豆腐. I don't understand your example. The name of the item explicitly identifies it as smelling bad.

Sure, but what about other examples. Tons of people like blue cheese. But it smells bad. It doesn't have "smells bad" in the name. Neither does "durian" 榴莲
Post reply on HN