11 ms·

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 t

• exhilaration 9y ago
  I found a big exception to your blanket statements: There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence. http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/ http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
  • EliRivers 9y ago
    I'm sure there are a lot of physical mutilations we could make to people that would reduce the chances of various diseases. Nonetheless, I think there's a moral issue in slicing up children (or adults) for this reason. Do our bodies belong to ourselves, to the government, to someone's god, or to the people around us? Not that I'm saying you're advocating it; just continuing the train of thought.
    • grandalf 9y ago
      Great point.
    • misterbowfinger 9y ago
      Nonetheless, I think there's a moral issue in slicing up children (or adults) for this reason. Do our bodies belong to ourselves, to the government, to someone's god, or to the people around us? This feels like a platitude that overlooks the complexity of the issue. What rights do parents have over their children? Are they allowed to prescribe a religion? Are they allowed to prescribe a culture? Are they allowed to take their children to the hospital if they're sick? Personally, I don't think male circumcision is that big of a deal, because it has little to no negative impact on a male child. Female circumcision, on the other hand, is different.
      • Mithaldu 9y ago
        > it has little to no negative impact on a male child. Really? Please link a study, published in a respectable publication, that compares physical and subjective sex performance parameters of the two type of men.
    • alistairSH 9y ago
      I'm sure there are a lot of physical mutilations we could make to people that would reduce the chances of various diseases. Mastectomy or oophorectomy to avoid cancers in infants with BRCA1/2 mutations comes to mind.
    • ianmcgowan 9y ago
      And to follow the train of thought all the way - do children's bodies belong to themselves or to their parents? Parents (or Guardians) do have to make some decisions for their children, but perhaps should defer irreversible decisions on elective surgery until the child is old enough to have an opinion - boys and girls both. And if the thought of asking a 13 year-old girl if she wants to have her genitals modified gives you pause, perhaps consider how circumcision is any different?
  • grandalf 9y ago
    Even if this is true there is absolutely no reason to do it during infancy to a helpless victim. Perhaps the procedure could be offered to adults as a way to have safer sex without actually having safe sex.
  • Mizza 9y ago
    > There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Saying there is evidence is not the same as evidence. AFAIK, this study was debunked because the result was not causal - it was that different class/cultural patterns among the sub-populations of the country were responsible, not the circumcision. But, there was already a massive stream of funding (Bill Gates included) for adult circumcision based on that faulty reasoning, and now it's too late to turn the ship around.
    • vixen99 9y ago
      If only the contributors to this massive stream of funding had checked the debunking evidence you cite - oh, hold on . . .
  • Brotkrumen 9y ago
    Thats for infection Rates of men during heterosexual intercourse. These are already low: https://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/resources/heterosexual-risk-hiv-1-infection-sexual-act-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis https://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/resources/heterosexual-risk-... So you'd be cutting the rate from 8 in 10000 acts to 3 in 10000. its something but theres probably more efficient ways.
• grandalf 9y ago
  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 would be easier for people to see how barbarous it is.
  • EGreg 9y ago
    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 probably refrain from physically altering their children. But since they believe that this has huge ramifications for their child's life as a Jew, and if you read the Bible you can definitely see why, telling them that they must stop this practice is equivalent to an attack on their whole religion. And specifically the Jewish religion, given that it's not obligatory for Cheistians and many Muslims do not regard it as obligatory. I should also point out that Jewish men on average seem to have successful upbringings and lower incidence of drug abuse, failed marriage etc. than tons of other groups. And Jews have been around for millennia. So arguments that something is more moral or less moral are subjective. There are families of different types and traditions and beliefs. The health outcomes of this particular practice have been empirically shown not to be worse on average than the opposite. In today's world, we are constantly figuring out what leads to more or less moral outcomes long term for society. 100 years ago, women couldn't wear bikinis to the beach, now we have lots of freedoms. We now have no-fauly divorce. Today, sexuality is everywhere, the family structure has deteriorated compared to before, divorces are up, many people have sex and don't stick around to raise the child, McDonalds is on every corner, obesity and depression is up etc. Is this better? Well, who knows, but we know that some systems have been stable and successful for millennia. Calling them immoral (from an atheist point or view) also carries the burden of showing our system to be more successful and to have better outcomes. Finally, in our system, liberal progressives are totally fine with far greater mutilation as long as a child feels that they are of the opposite gender. Why doesn't the same argument apply to make them wait until they are 18 or 21? Studies show that most children who feel like the opposite gender change their mind after several years regarding transitioning physically. So why right away submit them to permanently changing into a transsexual? Yet the same progressives who argue against circumcision would argue for gender reassignment surgery.
• speg 9y ago
  Multiple doctors and nurses told us to just leave it (not clean) and let him figure it out when he was old enough when our son was born in December.
• colbyh 9y ago
  Categorically false. I have a newborn boy and talked to a number of doctors about it - there is actually a slight benefit to the circumcised child [1], it just isn't enough for the American Association of Pediatrics to recommend it outright. [1] https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/newborn-male-circumcision.aspx https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages...
  • LeeHwang 9y ago
    Here is a link to the actual technical report, http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756 http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756 Which has all the hallmarks of misleading data. See the comments for more http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756.comments http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756.com...
    • colbyh 9y ago
      Did you actually read the complaints? There are two that seem reasonable (copied data and number to treat) and one that goes off on a tangent citing supreme court cases on patient harm and sexual abuse. As far as harm let me be clear - the circumcision procedure causes less pain and consternation than my child's normal bowel movements. The former two seem like legit cases to look into, but doesn't necessarily mean the entire study needs to be thrown out. Until then I see no reason not to let parents decide.
  • IgorPartola 9y ago
    Perhaps. But like with most medical procedures there is risk vs reward. In this case the risk is a 100% chance of altering how your child's sex organs look and function without their knowledge or consent vs a small and dubious reward. In other words don't fucking do it because it is barbaric and evil. If you think it's not, ask an uncircumcised adult to have the procedure done for all the benefits it provides and see how many agree.
    • colbyh 9y ago
      You're not even making rational arguments, you're vilifying a procedure you happen to dislike. The fact is that the entire medical community agrees there are benefits to either approach, so letting parents decide is the more reasonable stance here.
• tarkin2 9y ago
  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.
  • wyager 9y ago
    Phimosis doesn't manifest until around puberty and can almost always be treated non-surgically. It's not a justification for permanent invasive surgery on babies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0079408/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0079408/
  • Mithaldu 9y ago
    He made it pretty clear that he isn't talking about people with clear medical diagnosis indicating a need for it, also phimosis is usually not treated by removing the ENTIRE foreskin.
  • jbtule 9y ago
    The parent post, makes allowances for medical exceptions in their footnote. The point is there's no medical reason to circumcise en-mass or by default. Norway's ban is for ritual circumcision, which is not by a doctor.
  • MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
    > And calling it mutilation implies those who have and want to have this engage in mutilation akin to FGM. It's irresponsible. It is akin to FGM when it's done nonconsensually (which it is, in the vast majority of cases for both sexes). Disclaimer: I understand that FGM is much more sexually debilitating and AFAIK never has a medical need behind it, but victims of circumcision are also being (usually needlessly) deprived of a functional part of their sexual organ.
  • mickrussom 9y ago
    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.
• wyager 9y ago
  > or your caregiver if you're a baby This is actually not true. It's normal for the foreskin to remain attached in young children. This is entirely normal and acts as a powerful disease protection mechanism. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0079408/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0079408/
• moshei 9y ago
  Calling this mutilation is absurd, I am circumcised and so is my son - it was way more traumatic for me seeing, then it was for him feeling t - many babies do not even cry. I suggest you do a little more research on what genital mutilation really means in the 3rd world, circumcision is no worse than some injections by comparison. There is a very valid medical reason for this - it prevents sexually transmitted diseases [1] - So much so that it is promoted for adult males by health organizations. n the other hand, the foreskin serves absolutely no medical purpose. Most reputable mohels (specially trained people who conduct the circumcision) will use a tube to suck the blood to prevent any chance of infection. [1] http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/ http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
  • Mithaldu 9y ago
    That link had already been posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14292131 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14292131 Also, whether something is mutilation or not is about more than how much it hurts when it's done. In this case a child is deprived of a part of their body that performs a clear biological function.
    • moshei 9y ago
      I would disagree that the foreskin performs an essential biological function, and by the dictionary definition that would not make it mutilation.
      • Mithaldu 9y ago
        I said clear, not essential. Your pinky finger also does not perform an essential biological function, i.e. you can keep on living without it. But it performs a clear one, providing more grip strength and options. Please link to the dictionary definition you're using.
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      • moshei 9y ago
• awicz 9y ago
  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 the benefits outweighed the risks. As far as who should have the choice of this procedure, ideally it would be the individual on whom the procedure is being performed. However, the procedure and pain as an adult would certainly be more memorable. My parents made the choice to circumcise me when I was an infant--I'm glad they did because I don't remember any associated pain or discomfort. I think that there should be more discourse over this parental choice. If parents are making these decisions for mere aesthetic or ritualistic reasons then that is a problem. However, labeling circumcision as 'genital mutilation' across the board is not accurate. There are advantages and disadvantages that should be weighed carefully. [1] http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/basics/why-its-done/prc-20013585 http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/basi...
  • MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
    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.
  • mickrussom 9y ago
    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
    • awicz 9y ago
      "You will never know if the benefits outweigh the risks... " You're probably right. That's why it was a weighted decision based on the information available. Your other points do not match the same model we used to make our decision. Flipping someone off or giving the middle finger is a choice that one can make, and later apologize for and move on. Penile cancer or many STDs do not fall into that category. I'm surprised that this topic is even on HN, and even more so by the presumptive and emotional responses that clearly didn't read the post in its entirety. So, I don't think this is a conversation I will engage in any further.
• carsongross 9y ago
  It is insane that we don't regard it as such. I'm circumcised, as are my boys. I assumed it was for sound medical reasons. When I found out it wasn't, I was, and I am, furious.