Circumcision should be banned.

@AliasGrace47
Yes, I understand that religion is about ritual, etc so why cant they replace the act with something symbolic but non physical - like a special ceremony, complete with all the meaning and weight of other sacraments/events but one that avoids cutting the baby. It is not beyond the scope of faiths to have special prayers that give the same gravitas and meaning to an event in the way say, confirmation is done, that can then be respected within the community and strengthen its bonds.

I am against any body modification without consent. Anyone who wants to be circumcised can surely do so ar 16+. I also don't agree with sticking small metal bars into babies and young children. I am pretty sure I have had 14 piercings in my life, so certainly not against it, I just did all of them understanding what was going to happen.

I guess the thinking is that it's not a mistake, but not essential either, so can be symbolically removed to show allegiance
? But research seems to contradict that.

Terfarina, How did it happen..? Well, aside from the story, which is a matter of faith, I haven't looked into it, but probs for historical reasons to set the Jewish religion apart? It was v long ago, I am interested in religious research & it seems that some things like kosher laws may have been instigated by priests who wanted to have a monopoly on what was permitted and what was not, so perhaps circumcision was for a similar reason? I don't know much on this topic.

Those suggesting it has no impact on the male experience of sex - how do they know? There's a relatively small population of men who can quote before and after experience where it was done for non-medical reasons.

It is not something I could ever imagine being able to do after carrying a child inside me for 9 months. It seems a direct contradiction of the belief that God creates man in his own image and the religious logic that says God does not make mistakes. I think it is an act of violence against a baby.

Good question, I'm not Jewish- actually Muslims also circumcise don't they, I remembered when I saw pp. For Jews it's a physical symbol of the covenant w God, to set them apart as following special rules & having particular responsibilities.
In Islam, it's not in the Quran, but in the Hadith & Sunnah, accounts of Muhammad's life & sayings. It's complex & seems to me mainly promoting it as a sign of belonging, like Judaism, perhaps also as a simple continuation of pre Islamic customs?Not so clear, I need to check.

This topic is neither of those things.

I think wanting it to be banned in the UK is also a complete non-starter. It’s far too important to the Jewish religion.

It's not complex at all.

A woman chooses to grow a baby inside her.

The baby is born with all its perfect body parts intact.

The mother and father then choose to permanently remove some of their perfect baby's body, due to a religion they (not the baby) choose to follow.

It couldn't be any more simple.

I think expecting it to be banned in the US is a non starter. They're so backwards about circumcision.

Please please religious people - answer this.

@Cunningfungus Are you having a laugh! FGM is a complete mutilation of a girl’s genital area involving removal of her clitoris and often resulting in fistulae. Sometimes the girl’s vagina will be stitched over, only to be ripped open again forcefully during sex. Other effects include infection, scarring, chronic long term genital infections, obstetric problems, urination problems and even death from sepsis. Obstruction of the vaginal opening may lead to painful menstruation (dysmenorrhea), irregular periods and difficulty in passing menstrual blood. The girl is unlikely to ever go on and have a pleasant sexual experience following FGM.

Everything you said is correct, but what you have described is a specific, and very severe, form of FGM, which is not the most common. The term "FGM" embodies a very diverse and wide range of different forms of cutting (indeed, there are many different ways of cutting the penis too).

The least severe form of FGM is "pricking" (FGM Class IV) which is unquestionably far less severe than circumcision in infant boys.

However, such arguments are a distraction and are completely missing the point. It's not a competition of "this thing is worse than that thing." It's the principle that's the important point. Common sense should say that invasive and unnecessary surgery, without anaesthesia, should not be performed on infants who can't consent.

Makes no sense does it, God creates the eye with all its intricacies but somehow messes up the penis. As per usual, it's for humans to correct "God's mistake."
Couldn't make it up, circumcision actually sounds blasphemous.

Explain to me

If your god is the creator and grand designer. How they manage to leave a bit on skin on the end of a boys knob that needs modification from a humble human 🤔

@AliasGrace47 Similarly, I wouldn't expect gay men to know about female anatomy, unless they were involved in an issue like maternity care, dangers of vaginally surgery etc.

Well no, healthcare issues are a big topic in the media, and I would expect the general public to have an awareness of those issues because that in turn ensures that the issues receive the attention they deserve, which then leads to increased funding. Endometriosis has been a big thing in recent years, so I would expect gay men to have an awareness of it and the general structure of a woman's body. Same logic applies to lesbians- I would expect a lesbian to know that the entire head of the penis can be completely exposed without a surgical intervention.

This doesn't apply to me, but some gay & lesbian people find fundamentally unpleasant to think about the opposite sex's genitals.

Those people that you know need to grow up.

It should be illegal to mutilate any child, or non-consenting adults, genitals. No matter how much of the genitals you're removing, or what conditions it's done under. It should never be OK to remove or alter parts of a child's genitals for aesthetics. Fuck we made it illegal to Dock dogs tails but not baby boys foreskins.

Obviously medical necessity, which is very uncommon, is exempt, just like you'd amputate a limb if it was causing harm.

Apologies, I meant to refer to Americans in the UK but wasn't explicit. Yes, you'd need to do it for both.

Any legislation would probably phrase it as a geberal ban with an exception made for medical need rather than picking out reasons it wasn't allowed in any event.

Yes but is anyone doing it in the UK? Presumably we are talking about banning it in the UK. I'm not sure whether there would be any point in banning it for non religious reasons only in the UK.

100% agree, it’s a horrendous practice

Americans routinely do it because they think it's "cleaner". Foreskins on adult males are routinely greeted with an, "ewww!"

It's learned social behaviour not dissimilar to reactions to "uncut" females in parts of the world where FGM is routinely practiced, though most Americans would baulk at the comparison.

Yes.

You can pay to have it done for any reason. Apparently it's common amongst the aristo class, and obviously expats from countries where it's more common so that baby boys can grow up looking like daddy.