Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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.



  > I see zero reason to worry about something that cannot even be legally performed
  > in the first place.
That line of thinking bolsters my previous comment that the "if its a boy" clause was not unnecessary, and conveys specific intent.


Serious question, do you have issues with english reading comprehension?

"If it is a boy" was a necessary clause. Because "if it was a girl", then they won't need to worry abour circumcision. Which is why mentioning the first clause made perfect sense. No need for some conspiracy theories here.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: