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

201–207 of 207 posts

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

#201

Post by relics443 »

spraak wrote: post #198
relics443 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Babies feel pain, which you seem to be saying they don't with: > by 13 he will go through with it. So now there's physical pain as well.

I'm not saying they don't. But the experience is forgotten quickly.

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

#202

Post by jquery »

Mithaldu wrote: post #197
jquery wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3881635/ No statistically significant difference in: * Ejaculation time * Erectile dysfunction * Sexual desire * Orgasm difficulties * Pain during or after sex This is important, because circ'd individuals are often targeted online as having inferior sexual organs (count how many times the word "mutilated" is used in this thread). I'm willing to bet the mental health impac…

They threw together a bunch of contradicting studies, assigned weights without discussion of the assigning methods and parameters, then decided on an average and declared it a fact, instead of being honest and saying "we don't know either way". Based on this overall pattern i don't think i have much trust that their decision making process wasn't biased. As for incomplete. I'm sorry, but there are no two ways about i…

For something that's so obviously damaging and mutilation and horrible and obscene, you'd think the science wouldn't at least be equivocating. The science should make you happy. You can still oppose circumcision, and you don't have to feel so much sympathy for circumcised people like me. Win/win.

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

#203

Post by DanBC »

RightMillennial wrote: post #158
DanBC wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom from harm trumps freedom of religion. This law is not incompatible with freedom of religion.

And circumcision is not incompatible with "freedom from harm" because it is not harmful. Therefore, this is a law that needlessly restricts freedom of religion.

Circumcision is harmful. It removes healthy tissue that has function.

You can talk about how harmful it is, but it definitely causes harm.

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

#204

Post by EGreg »

Mithaldu wrote: post #197
jquery wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3881635/ No statistically significant difference in: * Ejaculation time * Erectile dysfunction * Sexual desire * Orgasm difficulties * Pain during or after sex This is important, because circ'd individuals are often targeted online as having inferior sexual organs (count how many times the word "mutilated" is used in this thread). I'm willing to bet the mental health impac…

They threw together a bunch of contradicting studies, assigned weights without discussion of the assigning methods and parameters, then decided on an average and declared it a fact, instead of being honest and saying "we don't know either way". Based on this overall pattern i don't think i have much trust that their decision making process wasn't biased. As for incomplete. I'm sorry, but there are no two ways about i…

Which organization's decision making progress did you find unbiased, that you based your conclusions on?

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

#205

Post by cryptarch »

relics443 wrote: post #145

The debate here seems to boil down to(from my Orthodox Jewish perspective at least): 1. There is a subjective morality that says a parent must not make decisions for a child that will affect it in a manner that could possibly be perceived as negative 2. There is a subjective morality that says to follow your religion, and one aspect of the religion is circumcising your son at 8 days old The people ascribing to the fi…

Would both subjective moralities taken to the extreme arrive at similarly harmful conclusions, though?

1. Not giving your child tattoos, piercings or a circumcision.

2. Female genital mutilation.

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

#206

Post by amscanne »

logfromblammo wrote: post #87
grandalf wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I would not do it to an infant, it's not a sex organ and will restore to fully healed/closed status if left alone for a few weeks, so it's hard to compare this to removing part of a sex organ that will not re-grow.

In for a penny; in for a pound. The principle is the same. The hospital should not be doing so much as trimming a fingernail of any patient incapable of giving informed consent, in the absence of a true medical necessity. In the case of the ear-piercings, it is likely that the local cultural landscape is such that if the procedure is not performed in a sterile and controlled environment, by professional medical perso…

> The principle is the same. The hospital should not be doing so much as trimming a fingernail of any patient incapable of giving informed consent, in the absence of a true medical necessity.

Do you have a child? Would you not trim their fingernails?

Obviously you would, because you consent on their behalf. Same deal with the piercing; the Hospital obviously doesn't do it without the parents' consent.

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

#207

Post by spraak »

relics443 wrote: post #201
spraak wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Babies feel pain, which you seem to be saying they don't with: > by 13 he will go through with it. So now there's physical pain as well.

I'm not saying they don't. But the experience is forgotten quickly.

It's really not. There is evidence [1] that the trauma of circumcision lasts a lifetime

1. One example is Ch 4 and 5 of http://www.circumcision.org/cht.htm

Post reply on HN