Live data from Hacker News

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

jpost.com

121–130 of 207 posts

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

#121
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…

Nearly every person who works a manual job and loses a finger went on to have a productive and fulfilling career. Doesn't mean they wouldn't have preferred to keep it. > Plus we have hundreds of years over which to know if such a procedure had adverse effects and the incidence rates. Really? Please link a study, published in a respectable publication, that compares physical and subjective sex performance parameters o…

The real question here is how many men born to Orthodox Jewish parents, when asked in adulthood whether they would have preferred to have been curcumcized at 8 days old or not, would have regretted it.

And the answer is?

Obviously the same is not true of people losing a finger.

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

#122
post #94
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 of religion is a basic human right. Freedom of religion means the state can't tell you what to believe. It emphatically does not mean that you have carte-blanche authority to do whatever crazy stuff your religion asks you to do, including murdering infidels or performing cosmetic surgery on babies.

> does not mean that you have carte-blanche authority to do whatever crazy stuff your religion asks you to do

And how shall we decide what constitutes "crazy stuff"? In Daniel 6:4-9, it was decided that it was unlawful to make a petition to any god or man except the king. In fact, this was done explicitly to provide an excuse to persecute Daniel.

To help illuminate the issue, what if Hinduism required nose piercing at 8 days, instead of Jews with circumcision? Some in this thread find piercing babies to be wrong, while others find it acceptable. Who gets to decide? And what about the poor Hindu who is now jailed for the practice?

It's ironic to me how easy people find it to run merrily down this slippery slope, and yet complain so readily when their own freedoms are infringed.

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

#123
post #53
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…

It IS mutilation to those who DON'T want it. A baby has no choice. Read my post again, most babies have no medical reason for it.

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

#124
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?

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 general computation. I'm only speculating but I think that's fair when most of the alleged harms of circumcision are also speculation. For what it's worth, the biggest harm for myself has been the unending insistence that circumcised people are somehow "incomplete" and inferior. It took me a while and lots of research to realize that the story is far more complex.

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

#125
post #65
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, some reasonable people think that genital mutilation is OK, because being reasonable does not guarantee moral clarity. This is why many reasonable people supported slavery and other abhorrent things. I can't believe anyone would allow someone to knife off part of their child's genitals (even with anesthesia). Maybe if the procedure involved branding the Playboy logo into the genitalia (with anesthesia) it…

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…

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/men-explain-why-they-were...

We don't have many examples of adult men undergoing the procedure to say which way feels better, since any medical problems would show themselves before they reach adulthood, and nobody really wants to get cut needlessly. The above link follows 4 men who did have it done as adults after they started their sex lives and the results range from "fine" to "horrible". It should be noted that circumcision was pushed in America with the purpose of stopping masturbation, i.e. a purely religious reason [1] (AFAIK none of my circumcised friends have refrained from masturbating), by John Kellogg (he invented cornflakes for the same purpose), and [2] has some excerpts from his book, including "burning the clitoris with acid is an effective means of curtailing female masturbation". I find the idea of mutilating the genitals a bit horrific, even if you're basically cutting off an organ that isn't strictly speaking keeping you alive. Humans are pretty resilient and you can cut off a lot of small parts before you actually start seeing real functional impediment.

I will note that [2] also notes that people living in hotter, wet climates (Jews, Muslims, some tropical island tribes, etc.) practice it for purely health reasons, since in the time when you couldn't take a shower whenever you wanted, the secretions that collect under the foreskin can lead to inflammation. Today if you live in an apartment and can take daily showers, I think spending 5 seconds to clean your willy is a better alternative to risking circumcision. Some boys unfortunately need it done, but that's no reason to cut off everyone's en-masse. Similarly, there was a time when children had their tonsils removed routinely to prevent diseases [3], but with today's improved standard of living that's not needed.

[1] http://www.cirp.org/pages/whycirc.html

[2] http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_co...

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

#126

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?

For one, it has erogenous nerves in it. Or more clearly put: Friction and pressure on certain parts of my foreskin feels really good, even if the entirety of it is held fixed and none of the friction is applied to the glans. The parts that feel good are fairly forwards, so it is unlikely that any of that would survive a circumcision.

For the other, in penetration it both acts as liquid-less lubrication by allowing the penis to move freely inside it even if the vagina isn't very wet; and it also increases the range of sensations by feeling different when the movement is with the glans still inside the foreskin, and when it's deeper in and outside the foreskin. The "pseudo lube" aspect is also appreciated by women in my experience.

E: I see some people down-voted this and i am earnestly puzzled. I believe i have described only physical facts. Is this post too "frank" for a public forum, or did i get something wrong?

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

#127
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…

> Leaving a Jewish male baby uncircumcised would most likely lead to feelings of alienation and isolation later on in life

Do Jews really go around checking each other's penises all the time?

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

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You don't actually know that.

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

#129
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…

I have a circumcised penis and I am not Jewish. Reducing the Jewish identity to having your penis circumcised is just flawed as it naturally excludes Jewish women. Jewish males can still have their private parts circumcised when they become adult as it was supposed to be the case, a rite of passage for getting into the adult world. Most of your rebuttal is centered around a "slippery-slope" argument and it is not con…

Entirely incorrect.

As an orthodox Jew, I can tell you that failure to circumcize your son at 8 days old (outside of extenuating circumstances, e.g. medical issues) is one of the worst sins you could commit.

Furthermore, you would be ostracized from the community, and your child will suffer socially, and emotionally.

Once the child turns 13 he is responsible to ensure that he it's circumcised, and considering that he most likely will not have abandoned his religion by 13 he will go through with it. So now there's physical pain as well.

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

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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 been.

In the West, we have values of individualism. So being part of a millennia old people or a tradition or serving God are not seen as primary values by many atheists. I bet the people downvoting and commenting here negatively about circumcision are not of an Abrahamic faith - Judaism Christianity or Islam.

Fine but the individualism has also led to more depression, tiny families, often broken homes (also permanent effects on the child). So when you talk about tradeoffs tou have to consider the complex set of interconnected benefits. And different people perceive different benefits depending on their cultural upbringing. I can tell you that the vast majority of Orthodox Jewish men are glad they were circumcized at 8 days old and not had to choose it later.

Post reply on HN