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

101–110 of 207 posts

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

#101

Post by EGreg »

wyager wrote: post #77
pugio wrote: post #62

Let's add some nuance: Circumcision, for (orthodox) Jews, is one of the most fundamental conditions for identification and belonging to that group. Leaving a Jewish male baby uncircumcised would most likely lead to feelings of alienation and isolation later on in life – feelings which could have significant psychological impact and could largely negate the benefits one gains from strong communal structures. Regardles…

The same is true for female genital mutilation in certain Islamic cultures. I still don't think "it's culturally important" is a reasonable defense, and I doubt you do either. And just to cut off this objection, the vast majority of female circumcision involves removal of the clitoral hood, which is (mutatis mutandis) anatomically equivalent to removal of the foreskin and has similar effects and risks.

You are factually wrong about the majority of FGM removing just the foreskin.

Most FGM is type II

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

Saying it has similar effects and risks is just handwaving.

And it is largely practiced in Africa, where tribal ritualistic bodily modification has remained a much bigger thing (compared to the rest of the world). Consider women who stretch their lips with disks to attract men etc.

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

#102

Post by MaxfordAndSons »

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…

I'm glad you at least thought about it, but I think you (and most American parents) made the wrong choice. You're violating your sons bodily autonomy, and depriving him of a functional part of his sexual organ, for what is mostly a matter of convenience.

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

#103

Post by Mithaldu »

jquery wrote: post #99
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…

I'm against circumcision but I can't deny you've made some of the most compelling points I've ever heard regarding the issue. If circumcision is so bad we'd expect poorer life outcomes for the victims of it. Instead we see the opposite. Assuming the better life outcomes aren't just because of culutural values, I wonder if there are benefits to circumcision we simply don't have the scientific tools to measure.

> we'd expect poorer life outcomes for the victims of it. Instead we see the opposite.

People keep saying this, but fail to link to sources substantiating their non-obvious claims. Link to a study please?

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

#104

Post by Boothroid »

bluejekyll wrote: post #83
Boothroid wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hang on a minute - the article is explicitly about Jews/Israel!!! 'Jewish leader urges Israel to exert political influence in fight for religious freedom in Europe.'

Yes. I know the article is about that. I'm saying my comment, and I think the discussion should focus on the welfare of the child over the discussions of particular religions.

Ok I see. Well indeed, I don't understand why minority groups can use religion as a trump card over the right of a child to not suffer genital mutilation, and claim they should be able to continue to mutilate and that otherwise it's a form of discrimination :| Going back to my previous point, I'm saying that if it's so important to someone to be able to genitally mutilate their child, why choose to stay in a country that is apparently so hostile to your beliefs, when there is an alternative that is specifically designed to put your needs first?

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

#105

Post by mickrussom »

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…

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 a potential fight. Also sewing his mouth shut might prevent sass talk

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

#106

Post by moshei »

Mithaldu wrote: post #98
moshei wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mutilation

( 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.

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

#107

Post by mickrussom »

tarkin2 wrote: post #53
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…

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.

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

#108

Post by grandalf »

Mithaldu wrote: post #103
jquery wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm against circumcision but I can't deny you've made some of the most compelling points I've ever heard regarding the issue. If circumcision is so bad we'd expect poorer life outcomes for the victims of it. Instead we see the opposite. Assuming the better life outcomes aren't just because of culutural values, I wonder if there are benefits to circumcision we simply don't have the scientific tools to measure.

> we'd expect poorer life outcomes for the victims of it. Instead we see the opposite. People keep saying this, but fail to link to sources substantiating their non-obvious claims. Link to a study please?

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.

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

#109

Post by Mithaldu »

ythn wrote: post #19

This is one of those topics where people have extremely strong opinions, yet the vast majority of people affected by this practice (circumcised males) have no opinion or even a favorable opinion of their circumcision.

> people affected ... have ... even a favorable opinion of their circumcision.

Stockholm syndrome is very likely in those cases.

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

#110

Post by Mithaldu »

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…

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?

Post reply on HN