Circumcision should be banned.

A child actually died here - Ireland- a couple of years ago. Of course it should be banned unless it's a medical necessity.
Cue loads of American posters , shroud waving about penile cancer or some such.

What non-Jews or Muslims do is up to them.

@samG76 You're not doing it to yourselves though are you? You're inflicting it on a foreskin that doesn't belong to you.

"The only benefit that this batshit proposal would have is to bring those groups together in opposition to the idea."

Aside from protecting children from having the procedure forced upon them?

Late onto this discussion but the level of religious ignorance is astonishing. No Jewish or Muslim person think that God has made a mistake. That's why circumcision is only required for members of the faith. Unlike many forms of Christianity we don't claim to have a monopoly on the truth or have any wish to legislate for them. What non-Jews or Muslims do is up to them.

As for a legal ban, does anyone seriously think that the govt would have the slightest interest in hacking off the Jewish, Muslim and many Christian/African communities? The only benefit that this batshit proposal would have is to bring those groups together in opposition to the idea. DH has relatives living in a place that regulated but didn't ban the practice. Some of them left the country and went to Israel, others just went ahead regardless.

This just popped up on the BBC.
One child nearly died.

This quote made me shudder
"non-therapeutic male circumcision is unregulated and not required to be carried out by a medical practitioner"

Yet, those who pierce ears need licences and are regulated by local authorities. Chopping bits off babies, perfectly fine apparently.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3l1pw1gwxo

Of course it should be banned. Mutilating a child's genitals because of religion or culture has no place in modern Britain. It should carry a sentence on par with FGM for the practitioners and serious consequences for any parents involved, because frankly any parent that thinks that chopping bits off a child is OK should be watched closely by social services.

So if men prefer big boobs we should give all teen girls implants?

For me the long term sexual satisfaction of men is NOT the issue here, it is unecessary body modification on babies and children unless prescribed by a Medical professional.
Even if there were many many studies (there aren't) which say men who have been circumsized have a much better sex life it still shouldn't be done on babies. Who the hell looks at their tiny baby and says "if we cut this bit off he will have better sex"

I don’t think they are the same but I guess I am drawing a difference in the magnitude of the impact rather than the moral or philosophical question about whether it’s ok to harm your child for no objective benefit to them. In that respect I don’t think considering them alongside each other minimises the impact or issue of FGM.

I wouldnt consider them quite the same either. I don’t agree with either but fgm can prevent a woman from ever being able to enjoy sex/ reach orgasm. Circumcised men may have a lack of sensitivity due to calcification of the head of the penis but it’s not the same degree of damage/ repercussions that women face.

I think by putting them on the same level you minimise the harm caused to women.

@Walkden I completely forgot about that! Holy shit, I wonder (not googling) if it's still the norm in the U.S.?

"Which do women prefer?

• Sex with a circumcised man , or
• Sex with an uncircumcised man ?"

Although to be fair the original question was onc e a plotline for charlotte in sex in the city...

That's not relevant at all.
I find you wanting to discuss that on a thread about the ethical issues very questionable. Maybe start your own thread on the sex board.

None of your business

@AliasGrace47 Why do you feel that it is so important to distinguish between genital cutting in men and women? It serves absolutely no purpose except for you to be able to say "women have it worse."

When you start distinguishing between different types of cutting to say "X is not as bad as Y," that is used to normalise a range of different types of cutting in both boys and girls. Whereas if you, and the wider public, simply adopted common sense and said "unnecessary surgery should not be performed on infants' genitals," then it would help to create a stigma around the practice.

It's barbaric, unless for medical reasons nothing will convince me of anything else

It's not on par with FGM but it's not that far off

Do it for religious reasons when the child/adult is 18 if you're so inclined

Parents stop cutting your babies & young children

• spelling

. . . Why not ? - why not talk about the impact of the circumcision of male babies on the adult life of both the men and their partners.

Male babies become men, and we're talking about an operation that may make their adult life more enjoyable, or less enjoyable, both for them and for their partners.

Sorry, it was late last night & I was too curt. I wasn't questioning your opinion on it, you've been v clear how awful it is. What I meant was that in one of your earlier posts you said 'FGM varies enormously, from minor cutting that seems v comparable to male circumcision in terms of being a skin removal procedure' & 'the more extreme types are by far in the minority internationally'.

A lot of people were referring to infibulation (type 3) as the extreme type, so I get that you were responding to that, but I wanted to emphasise that Type 1 & 2 (85% worldwide) are not normally 'minor cutting' and a 'skim removal procedure.' Type 1 can be just the prepuce but can also be total clitoridectomy, & Type 2 includes at least partial removal of the labia minora & sometimes majora as well either partial or total clitoridectomy. They both heighten risks in future childbirth, which is again not comparable to circumcision. From the problems caused worldwide & the concern of charities etc I think it's unlikely that most of the procedures worldwide are milder Type 1 w removal of prepuce.

You also mentioned Type 4, pricking, to counter pp who said FGM is always comparable to castration & always has severe complications. While I agree it's not always as serious as clitoridectomy or infibulation, Type 4 only comprises 15% worldwide. All other FGM, 85%, involves the removal of at least some of the clitoris, & v often risks future birth complications. I don't want to derail from circumcision, I just want to clarify the details as it is very important that they are clear.

Why?

No one is talking about men. They're talking about babies. Are you always weird?

Which do women prefer?

• Sex with a circumcised man , or
• Sex with an uncircumcised man ?

@sashh I sort of agree but there are times where it is a grey area. What about a child with protruding ears? Pinning isn't medically necessary but might have a huge psychological effect. The same with mole or birthmark removal.

Well yes, pinning protruding ears or removing moles could arguably improve a child's emotional well-being if they are bothered by their appearance. Granted that it's wrong we live in a society in which children can be made to feel that way, but regardless, that does not invalidate the child's feelings.

None of this is relevant to circumcision because men generally don't walk around with their penis hanging out, so no one else sees it during daily life.

Lots of things are difficult to police. Doesn't mean you don't legislate against them anyway. If it stops only half of these abusive procedures happening, that's worth it.

Totally agree.

No one has the right to abuse.

Illegal circumcisions would be noticed- and that matter needs to be reported to social services and police.
If it seems a number of illegal circumcisions are clustered around a place of worship then they would be also held accountable.