6 ms·

Don't circumcise (genital mutilate) your kid if he's a boy.

anakaine 4y ago
Going to second this. There is absolutely no medical reason to do this, only religious dogma. You're taking away protection, some level of gratification, and a few other things.
- chris_wot 4y ago
  One of those things being foreskin.
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  > There is absolutely no medical reason to do this Phimosis, Fournier's gangrene, and potentially permanent deformation of the glans.
  - s9w 4y ago
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    A person can get circumcised when (if) those things happen. There's no medical reason for indiscriminate circumcision at birth.
    - Dracophoenix 4y ago
      The same could be said of any post-natal surgery for congenital birth defects, such as club foot or cleft lip. Many can go without surgery and live their entire lives without developing early-onset arthritis or feeding issues. These days, and in the vast majority of cases, a person can live a relatively healthy and long life without surgery for congenital arrhythmia. But I have never heard or read wholesale condemnations of preventive infant surgery to mitigate, if not prevent, the outcomes of the aforementioned defects. In fact, the opposite is true; Someone (usually a parent or doctor) is expected to do something at the earliest possible moment, even if the issue left untreated would only have a negligible chance of getting "worse" in terms of health or otherwise. I agree that there's no medical reason for indiscriminate circumcision at birth, or, for that matter, indiscriminate surgery of any kind at any time. After all, that's what circumcision is: surgery. However, the poster I responded to did not make that distinction. Another poster simply posted the word "propaganda". Given what I've read, I'm convinced that many of these anti-circumcision posts are motivated by animus — whether of genital surgery in its entirety or the religious elements associated with it — rather than a well-thought critique of the practice in secular and instrumental terms. A wholesale dismissal of circumcision is as unthinking as a blind acceptance of it. Instead, each case must be assessed on its own merits. Unfortunately, I rarely see my particular position shared by anyone else.
      - bheadmaster 4y ago
        > However, the poster I responded to did not make that distinction. Because it was implicit - we are discussing circumcision of infants, not circumcision of adult males with phimosis. > Given what I've read, I'm convinced that many of these anti-circumcision posts are motivated by animus — whether of genital surgery in its entirety or the religious elements associated with it Of course it's motivated by animus - mutilation of infants is disgusting. It should not be done, unless explicitly needed in individual cases due to medical issues, just like any other kind of amputation. Speculation of religious hatred is completely uncalled for. > Instead, each case must be assessed on its own merits. Unfortunately, I rarely see my particular position shared by anyone else. Yes, and the first step is to stop mutilating children in general just for the sake of mutilating children in general.
        Dracophoenix 4y ago
        > Because it was implicit - we are discussing circumcision of infants, not circumcision of adult males with phimosis. Infant phimosis exists and it generally requires circumcision. Regarding the post I replied to, I'm not obligated to divine implicit claims from absolute statements. If someone has made an absolute claim with with no stated qualifications or context whatsoever, that is a fundamental error I have a right to rebut it. No context needed on my part. > Of course it's motivated by animus - mutilation of infants is disgusting. It should not be done, unless explicitly needed in individual cases due to medical issues, just like any other kind of amputation. > Yes, and the first step is to stop mutilating children in general just for the sake of mutilating children in general. Just to reiterate, the first step is to understand the appropriate context for when circumcision is necessary and when it isn't, whether of an infant or adult. People don't mutilate children for the sake of mutilating children. The reasons may vary in quality and acceptability, but the general understanding of why parents and doctors advocate for circumcision is as a means and attempt to make the child's present or future life "better" (for some definition of the word). Whether the reasoning for "better" is acceptable depends on the particular case being examined. I would also add that almost all surgeries are accomplished by mutilation, even the ones deemed uncontroversial and necessary to save an infant's life. Instead of throwing FUD around with words like "mutilation", it would help your case to make a clear, coherent, and consistent point. > Speculation of religious hatred is completely uncalled for. If the animus isn't directed towards the medical practice of circumcision, then by process of elimination it surely must be against its religious practice. Historically, religious figures (to my knowledge, Judaic and Christian) have advocated for circumcision and employed people to undertake the task on behalf of the church/temple/etc. In some sects/denominations, the extra-medical practice of circumcision continues to exist. It would make sense that the anti-circumcision posts have much (if not more) to do with the posters' revulsion towards the faith(s) they grew up in, and of which circumcision is a permanent marker.
bheadmaster 4y ago
Very hard agree. No matter how "right" you might think it is because of various reasons, it's mutilation of a child's organ, and it's irreversible.
Jabbles 4y ago
> if he's a boy You are, of course, implying that FGM is far, far, worse and would be unthinkable for anyone on HN?
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
  Like OP, I wouldn’t have mentioned FGM just because nobody actually does that where I’m from.
dotancohen 4y ago
Notice that the single bit of medical advice in this thread - among the tens of medical decisions you'll have to make and literally thousands of decisions you hope to not need to make - relates to religious aspects. And I'm sure that the guy who posted it was well-meaning, without a hint of religious hate in his blood. This is a terrific example of the "useful idiot" phenomenon. Those who hate any group - be it Jews or Catholics or Muslims or anybody else - will find something dear to those people and spread seemingly-unrelated advice that negates that group's core values. Then the useful idiots with no hate in mind spread these advice with fervour. As a Jew, I am aware of the minuscule risks of circumcision. And of course I had my son circumcised because that has been a hallmark of my race (not religion) for literally millennia. And I do other far riskier activities with my son, such as fishing and riding a bicycle and letting him use a knife. But nobody is advising us not to fish or ride a bicycle with our children, despite literally orders of magnitude higher risk.
- zach_garwood 4y ago
  It's great that you want to uphold a religious tradition that is important to your family, but that is not the case for the majority of people subjected to circumcision. Most are not Jewish and may not even be religious.
- Fezzik 4y ago
  Nobody I have ever met is against circumcision because it is a common practice amongst Jews. Everyone I know, including myself, is against it because it is a wholly unnecessary and irreversible procedure forced on a child before the child has the capacity to consent or object to the act. I assume you would be against the Islamic practice of female genital mutilation by cutting off a helpless child’s clitoris, despite the practitioners insistence that it is a hallmark of their culture, because it is barbaric. I just apply that same level of reasonableness to the male organ. And the number of centuries a people have been doing something has no bearing on the quality of the practice. Edit, to add: I did not intend to imply that female genital mutilation was prevalent in Islam, only that it is done and justified amongst Muslims at a not-insignificant rate.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
dotancohen 4y ago
> Don't circumcise (genital mutilate) your kid if he's a boy. Of the two forms of genital mutilation, why do you explicitly forbid the low-risk procedure while ignoring the high-risk procedure? Are you sure that whoever convinced you of the importance of this issue had no other motive?
- filoleg 4y ago
  They most likely ignored the high-risk one (assuming FGM), because it is unthinkable of and is not even legal to perform in most western countries. Is it even a thing outside of a few ultra-conservative and religious countries/communities in Africa and Middle East?
  - dotancohen 4y ago
    > because it is unthinkable In that case the "if its a boy" clause was unnecessary. Consider the following sentence: > If you are pregnant then you shouldn't smoke if you're a woman.
    - aaomidi 4y ago
      The message was obvious by everyone reading this post.
      - dotancohen 4y ago
        The message is obvious by anyone willing to read between the lines. Circumcision is singled out not for risk, or harm, or agency. Far more risky and harmful things are done to children with no agency with no qualm nor opposition. And certainly not with the fervor of the anti-circumcision crowd.
        filoleg 4y ago
        There is nothing to read between the lines bere. Circumcision is "singled out" because that's the only one that realistically might happen to a child born in the west. If I were to have a child, circumcision would definitely need to be discussed with my partner. Because there are plenty of reasons people decide to opt-in for that procedure, none of which have any intentionally malicious components to it. FGM wouldn't need to be discussed, because not only I assume nobody here would be insane enough to even propose it, it is just downright evil, carries zero non-malicious purpose, and is illegal to perform here. I see zero reason to worry about something that cannot even be legally performed in the first place.

Going to second this. There is absolutely no medical reason to do this, only religious dogma. You're taking away protection, some level of gratification, and a few other things.

chris_wot 4y ago
One of those things being foreskin.
Dracophoenix 4y ago
> There is absolutely no medical reason to do this Phimosis, Fournier's gangrene, and potentially permanent deformation of the glans.
- s9w 4y ago
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  A person can get circumcised when (if) those things happen. There's no medical reason for indiscriminate circumcision at birth.
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    The same could be said of any post-natal surgery for congenital birth defects, such as club foot or cleft lip. Many can go without surgery and live their entire lives without developing early-onset arthritis or feeding issues. These days, and in the vast majority of cases, a person can live a relatively healthy and long life without surgery for congenital arrhythmia. But I have never heard or read wholesale condemnations of preventive infant surgery to mitigate, if not prevent, the outcomes of the aforementioned defects. In fact, the opposite is true; Someone (usually a parent or doctor) is expected to do something at the earliest possible moment, even if the issue left untreated would only have a negligible chance of getting "worse" in terms of health or otherwise. I agree that there's no medical reason for indiscriminate circumcision at birth, or, for that matter, indiscriminate surgery of any kind at any time. After all, that's what circumcision is: surgery. However, the poster I responded to did not make that distinction. Another poster simply posted the word "propaganda". Given what I've read, I'm convinced that many of these anti-circumcision posts are motivated by animus — whether of genital surgery in its entirety or the religious elements associated with it — rather than a well-thought critique of the practice in secular and instrumental terms. A wholesale dismissal of circumcision is as unthinking as a blind acceptance of it. Instead, each case must be assessed on its own merits. Unfortunately, I rarely see my particular position shared by anyone else.
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      > However, the poster I responded to did not make that distinction. Because it was implicit - we are discussing circumcision of infants, not circumcision of adult males with phimosis. > Given what I've read, I'm convinced that many of these anti-circumcision posts are motivated by animus — whether of genital surgery in its entirety or the religious elements associated with it Of course it's motivated by animus - mutilation of infants is disgusting. It should not be done, unless explicitly needed in individual cases due to medical issues, just like any other kind of amputation. Speculation of religious hatred is completely uncalled for. > Instead, each case must be assessed on its own merits. Unfortunately, I rarely see my particular position shared by anyone else. Yes, and the first step is to stop mutilating children in general just for the sake of mutilating children in general.
      - Dracophoenix 4y ago
        > Because it was implicit - we are discussing circumcision of infants, not circumcision of adult males with phimosis. Infant phimosis exists and it generally requires circumcision. Regarding the post I replied to, I'm not obligated to divine implicit claims from absolute statements. If someone has made an absolute claim with with no stated qualifications or context whatsoever, that is a fundamental error I have a right to rebut it. No context needed on my part. > Of course it's motivated by animus - mutilation of infants is disgusting. It should not be done, unless explicitly needed in individual cases due to medical issues, just like any other kind of amputation. > Yes, and the first step is to stop mutilating children in general just for the sake of mutilating children in general. Just to reiterate, the first step is to understand the appropriate context for when circumcision is necessary and when it isn't, whether of an infant or adult. People don't mutilate children for the sake of mutilating children. The reasons may vary in quality and acceptability, but the general understanding of why parents and doctors advocate for circumcision is as a means and attempt to make the child's present or future life "better" (for some definition of the word). Whether the reasoning for "better" is acceptable depends on the particular case being examined. I would also add that almost all surgeries are accomplished by mutilation, even the ones deemed uncontroversial and necessary to save an infant's life. Instead of throwing FUD around with words like "mutilation", it would help your case to make a clear, coherent, and consistent point. > Speculation of religious hatred is completely uncalled for. If the animus isn't directed towards the medical practice of circumcision, then by process of elimination it surely must be against its religious practice. Historically, religious figures (to my knowledge, Judaic and Christian) have advocated for circumcision and employed people to undertake the task on behalf of the church/temple/etc. In some sects/denominations, the extra-medical practice of circumcision continues to exist. It would make sense that the anti-circumcision posts have much (if not more) to do with the posters' revulsion towards the faith(s) they grew up in, and of which circumcision is a permanent marker.

bheadmaster 4y ago

Very hard agree. No matter how "right" you might think it is because of various reasons, it's mutilation of a child's organ, and it's irreversible.

Jabbles 4y ago

> if he's a boy You are, of course, implying that FGM is far, far, worse and would be unthinkable for anyone on HN?

rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
Like OP, I wouldn’t have mentioned FGM just because nobody actually does that where I’m from.

dotancohen 4y ago

Notice that the single bit of medical advice in this thread - among the tens of medical decisions you'll have to make and literally thousands of decisions you hope to not need to make - relates to religious aspects. And I'm sure that the guy who posted it was well-meaning, without a hint of religious hate in his blood. This is a terrific example of the "useful idiot" phenomenon. Those who hate any group - be it Jews or Catholics or Muslims or anybody else - will find something dear to those people and spread seemingly-unrelated advice that negates that group's core values. Then the useful idiots with no hate in mind spread these advice with fervour. As a Jew, I am aware of the minuscule risks of circumcision. And of course I had my son circumcised because that has been a hallmark of my race (not religion) for literally millennia. And I do other far riskier activities with my son, such as fishing and riding a bicycle and letting him use a knife. But nobody is advising us not to fish or ride a bicycle with our children, despite literally orders of magnitude higher risk.

zach_garwood 4y ago
It's great that you want to uphold a religious tradition that is important to your family, but that is not the case for the majority of people subjected to circumcision. Most are not Jewish and may not even be religious.
Fezzik 4y ago
Nobody I have ever met is against circumcision because it is a common practice amongst Jews. Everyone I know, including myself, is against it because it is a wholly unnecessary and irreversible procedure forced on a child before the child has the capacity to consent or object to the act. I assume you would be against the Islamic practice of female genital mutilation by cutting off a helpless child’s clitoris, despite the practitioners insistence that it is a hallmark of their culture, because it is barbaric. I just apply that same level of reasonableness to the male organ. And the number of centuries a people have been doing something has no bearing on the quality of the practice. Edit, to add: I did not intend to imply that female genital mutilation was prevalent in Islam, only that it is done and justified amongst Muslims at a not-insignificant rate.
bheadmaster 4y ago

dotancohen 4y ago

> Don't circumcise (genital mutilate) your kid if he's a boy. Of the two forms of genital mutilation, why do you explicitly forbid the low-risk procedure while ignoring the high-risk procedure? Are you sure that whoever convinced you of the importance of this issue had no other motive?

filoleg 4y ago
They most likely ignored the high-risk one (assuming FGM), because it is unthinkable of and is not even legal to perform in most western countries. Is it even a thing outside of a few ultra-conservative and religious countries/communities in Africa and Middle East?
- dotancohen 4y ago
  > because it is unthinkable In that case the "if its a boy" clause was unnecessary. Consider the following sentence: > If you are pregnant then you shouldn't smoke if you're a woman.
  - aaomidi 4y ago
    The message was obvious by everyone reading this post.
    - dotancohen 4y ago
      The message is obvious by anyone willing to read between the lines. Circumcision is singled out not for risk, or harm, or agency. Far more risky and harmful things are done to children with no agency with no qualm nor opposition. And certainly not with the fervor of the anti-circumcision crowd.
      - filoleg 4y ago
        There is nothing to read between the lines bere. Circumcision is "singled out" because that's the only one that realistically might happen to a child born in the west. If I were to have a child, circumcision would definitely need to be discussed with my partner. Because there are plenty of reasons people decide to opt-in for that procedure, none of which have any intentionally malicious components to it. FGM wouldn't need to be discussed, because not only I assume nobody here would be insane enough to even propose it, it is just downright evil, carries zero non-malicious purpose, and is illegal to perform here. I see zero reason to worry about something that cannot even be legally performed in the first place.