4 ms·

Do you have any any evidence to back that claim up?

• RightMillennial 9y ago
  Here's one data point to back up ythn. I was circumcised as an infant. I'm glad my father chose to have the procedure done so that I didn't have to go through the uncomfortable recovery period as an adult. I would have done it regardless for religious reasons with the medical reason as a bonus. If I have any sons, they will be circumcised as infants. That being said, I don't care whether you are or if your sons are circumcised or not. However, I do care if you infringe on the rights of parents to do what they think is best for their children whether it's for medical, cultural, or religious reasons.
  • GordonS 9y ago
    > I do care if you infringe on the rights of parents to do what they think is best for their children whether it's for medical, cultural, or religious reasons Serious question: how far should that be allowed to go? What if someone believes cutting off their child's earlobe is best for their child (for the sake of an example)? As I see it, religious freedom does not mean you get to do whatever you want with no comeback.
    • Mithaldu 9y ago
      Look at his posting history for today. He's just trolling.
      • RightMillennial 9y ago
        No. I am not trolling. I am merely expressing my point of view which happens to run contrary to a majority of HN users. One could easily say you are trolling in this particular thread based upon your comments today. Your "Stockholm syndrome" comment is golden.
    • RightMillennial 9y ago
      I think the line should be drawn where a practice causes real harm to children. While I find the idea of cutting off the earlobe repulsive, I don't think it sufficiently crosses the line of harm. For all I know this could be a legitimate practice by some obscure tribe. Finally, no one says religious freedom means you can do whatever the hell you want without any repercussions. That's a gross mischaracterization of it.