
Norway's Progress Party calls for ban on circumcision for boys - adamnemecek
http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Norways-Progress-Party-calls-for-ban-on-circumcision-of-boys-489982
======
spraak
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 cleanse the
> wound.

[1] Just like anything, there are exceptions. Some people have their foreskin
removed because it has an infection or something similar. That shouldn't be
applied to all foreskins, and even so, most of that is preventable with good
hygiene.

[2] [http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-dies-herpes-virus-
ritual-c...](http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-dies-herpes-virus-ritual-
circumcision-nyc-orthodox/story?id=15888618)

~~~
tarkin2
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 and want to have this engage
in mutilation akin to FGM. It's irresponsible.

~~~
mickrussom
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.

~~~
bryondowd
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. But to each their own, I
suppose.

~~~
Mithaldu
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genital_modification_and_mutil...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Labiaplasty_and_vaginoplasty)

~~~
bryondowd
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/](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.

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

~~~
jquery
Just like an ear piercing is in the same class as cutting off one's ear
entirely.

------
mmastrac
I don't understand how parents are allowed to make major, irreversible,
cosmetic medical decisions for children on their behalf. I'm not against
circumcision, but it should be the choice of someone who is able to consent.

~~~
fiatjaf
Well, parents are allowed to mark their children with musical taste, their
political views, their habits, their values. These are also irreversible.

Parents are allowed to feed their children the way they want, to take their
children to spots where they might get a disease, to pass on their own
diseases to their children.

Parents are allowed even to pass on their genes, which may contain horrible
psychological tendencies, to their children.

~~~
Brotkrumen
"Other bad things happen so we shouldnt try to improve this Bad thing!"

~~~
hamandcheese
I think the parent is just pointing out that the outrage seems a bit
disproportionate. There are far more damaging things a parent can do that most
people accept, whereas the actual effect circumcision has on your life is
basically zero.

~~~
Brotkrumen
If that's the argument, I'm not convinced. We as a society try to influence
the saner parts of what parent mentioned, such as values and pox parties.

Passing on genes, well we generally don't want to prevent that, because,
contrary to forbidding circumcision, the cure would be worse than the disease.

~~~
fiatjaf
> contrary to forbidding circumcision

That's the part when you introduce your values and your judgement and try to
make it sound as if everybody agrees.

------
bluejekyll
We tried this in San Francisco and it gets dragged into some crazy anti-
religious fight. It's about the rights of the baby, not about some religion's
outdated beliefs.

Children should be free of mutilation, regardless of their religion.

~~~
wyager
While I probably agree with your views on religious beliefs, if the goal is to
get rid of these kinds of practices, off-handedly insulting people's beliefs
probably won't convince them. It will just put them on the defensive.

The best rhetorical approach here is probably to hammer home the fact that, by
performing extensive and life-changing cosmetic surgery on a baby, you are
violating their rights. This avoids impugning the parents' motives, which they
are (for lack of a less abrasive word) aggressively programmed to defend.

------
pugio
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.

Regardless of the process's inherent morality, a blanket ban may cause more
harm than good. Cultures have dependency trees, like a Jenga tower: remove one
block, even one that, in isolation, is a negative, and you risk destabilizing
the entire structure and causing significantly more net harm than that single
negative you erased.

More generally, I'd propose a corollary to Chesterson's fence [1]: Before you
(in righteous external-observer outrage) destroy an element of a culture, make
sure you understand what role that element plays, and what harm you may cause
with such heavy handed destruction.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton.27...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton.27s_fence)

~~~
bluejekyll
No. Full stop. Just as with female genital mutilation, male genital mutilation
should be banned. For religious purposes this proposal should fit:

[https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/fgm-
compromise-n...](https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/fgm-compromise-
nick-western-countries-429250%3Famp%3D1)

That is a nick, not full mutilation.

~~~
EGreg
That nick is the equivalent of male circumcision and is practiced by the
Bohras, an Islamic sect. It makes a tiny incision for girls in the _foreskin_
covering the clitoris and it is not clear that this reduces sexual pleasure in
the future.

It is very far from FGM which removes the clitoris etc.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawoodi_Bohra](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawoodi_Bohra)

We have hundreds of years of data on Jewish males and how they fare after this
operation at 8 days old, and it is not at all clear that they are medically or
psychologically worse off than without it.

The fact that it is considered a requirement in the Jewish religion for
membership in the Jewish people plays a major role in the phychological well
being of the child and adult, and as the parent comment has said this needs to
be considered!

~~~
bluejekyll
Thank you for pointing out that the FGM nick actually has lasting effects. I
was not aware of that, and it's not something that I support.

> The fact that it is considered a requirement in the Jewish religion for
> membership in the Jewish people plays a major role in the phychological well
> being of the child and adult, and as the parent comment has said this needs
> to be considered!

And it should be. It should be considered just like stoning is considered, and
thrown out as against modern principles (in most places, sadly not all). It
should be considered, just like homosexuality should not have you burned at
the stake. This is no different.

I recognize that this is not a light decision, but it is a brutal act (with
non 0% chances of horrible things going wrong) that has no physiological need.

~~~
jquery
Exaggerate much? This is why the anti-circ crowd isn't taken seriously. Can
you point to comparative sexual studies where men circumcised as adults for
non-health reasons suffer from great psychological and physical harm, as would
be expected from a brutal act similar to being burned at the stake or being
stoned? Most studies of circumcision show no harm, some slight benefits, or
some slight harm.

------
sidlls
This is great. Genital mutilation is a wretched practice and should be
abolished everywhere.

------
quotemstr
I love this particular controversy. It really highlights how most political
opinions don't come from specific applications of universal principles, but
from ingroup-outgroup signaling and status quo bias. A little part of my
smiles whenever I see hypocrisy exposed.

~~~
jquery
There's a lot of yelling and very little dialogue. It doesn't make me smile at
all.

------
relics443
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 first believe it to be an objective morality. The
people ascribing to the second believe it to be an objective morality.

¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

~~~
cryptarch
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.

------
jacknews
[https://www.google.com.kh/search?q=circumcision+damage](https://www.google.com.kh/search?q=circumcision+damage)

[http://madsciencewriter.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-foreskin-
wh...](http://madsciencewriter.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-foreskin-why-is-it-
such-secret-in.html)

------
claar
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.

~~~
DanBC
Freedom from harm trumps freedom of religion.

This law is not incompatible with freedom of religion.

~~~
RightMillennial
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.

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

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

------
Balgair
Wow, now THIS is an off-topic flame-war thread for HN if I ever saw one....

------
vincnetas
Cutting of dogs ears or tail is not ok, even illegal somewhere , but somehow
it's ok to do similar things with your baby, because of ... because of
religion? Might be my dog is Pastafarian. Is it ok then to cut of his ears?

~~~
adamnemecek
It's not even religion, it's convention.

------
ythn
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.

~~~
feintruled
And what are they comparing it to? They quite literally do not know what they
are missing. It's not like they can have it replaced, so they have to make the
best of it.

Any non-circumcised male could choose to undergo the process as adults, I
don't hear of many takers.

~~~
dade_
It's not unheard of, but unless there is a medical condition, circumcision
should be considered cosmetic surgery and the decision made by the person
being circumcised. Involuntary cosmetic surgery/ genital mutilation, whatever
you want to call it, is a waste of taxpayer money in countries that have
publicly funded healthcare.

------
ythn
Should we also ban the piercing of infant ears?

~~~
peterwwillis
Why the hell would someone pierce an infant's ears???

~~~
amscanne
This is very common in Latin American cultures. In Mexico, they literally do
it at the hospital before you leave. (They don't do this in the U.S., but a
good portion of Latin Americans - I'd wager majority - will get it done at six
months.)

~~~
grandalf
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.

~~~
logfromblammo
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 personnel, at the hospital, it
would be done by amateurs at home. The medical necessity there may be the
significant probability of botched, infected piercings. As a public health
strategy, it isn't bad. Do the piercings at the hospital for two generations,
and then ramp up the out-of-pocket cost for it, while vilifying it with a PR
campaign.

Babies should still not be having their ears pierced, though. That is
certainly of lesser severity than cutting off and throwing away more
significant bits of the baby, leaving a permanent, visible scar there, but it
is on the same spectrum. You are performing unnecessary procedures on a
patient that cannot give consent.

~~~
amscanne
> 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.

