Hacker News Reader

Comment by jl6 | Hacker News Reader

> Is it worse than giving a 6-month old pierced ears? Is it worse than travelling through the birth canal and having your umbilical cord severed?

Since you asked the question, I’ll give what I think is the obvious answer: yes, of course it’s far worse than both of those things. By the way, I wouldn’t pierce a baby’s ears either, but at least that heals over and leaves minimal lasting damage. You can’t get foreskin back once it’s gone. This might be no big deal to someone who doesn’t know what they’re missing, but try applying that standard to any other part of the body.

What is the downside of leaving it until the age of 18 when they can decide to get it done if they want?

View on HN

There are medical procedures parents must decide to pursue or not, many are voluntary. Should I get my toddler's fremulum snipped even if there's no guarantee it helps their speech? Should teeth be extracted to help straighten out other teeth even if it results in weeks of pain? Are you saying that straight teeth are of more value than religious identity? There are many hard choices a parent must make; I think circumcision is singled out because it bears cultural and religious value but no clear medical value. So let's get down to the core of this discussion: ritual circumcision bears religious and cultural value and that's pretty much it. So long as it's done safely, of course. If you want to debate the biological merits of circumcision, you're missing the religious or cultural value. > What is the downside of leaving it until the age of 18 when they can decide to get it done if they want? My understanding is that if you wait until 18, the procedure is much more involved/more difficult, more in terms of pain and in terms of health risk. Judaism puts health above all other factors, whether it's driving to seek medical attention on shabbat, or not increasing the risk of infection in newborns. Oral suction goes against the highest Jewish principle. If circumcision caused harm - bodily or psychologically - Jews (or most would not practice it. I'm not sure I understand the physical or psychical harm done

> If you want to debate the biological merits of circumcision, you're missing the religious or cultural value.

If you are assigning religious or cultural value to an act that needlessly mutilates your child’s body, you are missing the principle of freedom and letting people have ownership of their bodies. There are cultures that “value” binding feet, stretch out lips and earlobes, poke holes in various places, and face tattoos.

That has no bearing on the fact that people should not have a cosmetic alteration done to their body without their permission.

Do you believe a child should have the power to decide what happens to their body even at a young age? What if a 6 year old wants to get a permanent tattoo? Or a middle schooler wants a subcutaneous horn implanted on the forehead to look cool? Or a toddler refuses medical treatment? I doubt that's what you mean.

Maybe you mean a parent and child should decide together? I don't think a child has the capacity to make, or even weigh in on, decisions. Not just a newborn, even older children (most anyway) would have a difficult time making big decisions like if they should have a body part altered by surgical operation. Is it your position to postpone all non-emergency decisions regarding bodily alterations until the person is old enough to decide for themselves what happens to their body? If so, that doesn't seem practical. If you mean something else, please go on

That is a different discussion about what age a person gains autonomy for altering their body, and it gets into nuances such as what kind alterations at what age.

But that is neither here nor there about this discussion, which is someone making an alteration to someone else’s body with zero medical benefit to the someone else.

What is the medical benefit of a frenectomy? Or of braces? Tooth extraction to straighten one's teeth? Removing a mole? The list goes on. Procedures are performed on kids because parents think it will give them a happier life. Not everything in this world is based on measurable, medical benefits.

As I wrote, I have not researched those procedures.

But the same reasoning would apply. You should not alter someone else’s body for cosmetic reasons without their permission.

> So let's get down to the core of this discussion: ritual circumcision bears religious and cultural value and that's pretty much it.

Indeed, and there is a long list of harms that humans have perpetrated on each other in the name of religious and cultural value. Ditching these superstitions and taking a human-centric evidence-based perspective is how we have progressed from valuable cultural practices such as foot binding, witch burning, pederasty… honestly, every evil deed in history’s entire rogues gallery has at some point been justified by the religious and cultural benefits that we would miss out on. I mean, a good witch burning surely did wonders for bringing the community together.

> I'm not sure I understand the physical or psychical harm done

That is apparent, and I wonder if it is truly possible for someone to understand the harm of losing something if they have no experience of what was lost.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com