Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think infant circumcision is wrong but also that a total ban on it will not work and is not the most effective way to tackle it?

732 replies

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 00:49

On the recent threads after the tragic death of the baby boy who died from circumcision performed by a non medical professional, there have been a lot of calls for a total ban on here.
Now, I think infant circumcision is very wrong. But in practice I do not think a ban will work.
Most cultural circumcisions are performed by medically trained people. Backstreet ones need to be cracked down on with the full force of the law, but they are not typical.
Second, circumcision is key in Islam. However, while most agree it’s either compulsory or strongly recommended, age requirements are not as stringent in mandating someone has to be a minor. I think there is some hope sensitive campaigning within the community could maybe make more families consider leaving it until their son is at least maybe an older adolescent with more ability to choose.
Judaism – circumcision is central to Orthodox, Ultra Orthodox Haredi ofc, and more liberal Masorti and Reform. It is extremely unlikely that any law or external pressure would stop these practices, because brit milah is a covenantal obligation tied to Jewish identity. Attempting a blanket ban would likely trigger defensiveness, fear, maybe underground circumcisions and probably emigration of at least some to Israel or elsewhere, rather than protect children.
Focusing on sterile procedures, trained practitioners, and medical supervision would be more likely to significantly reduce risk. Jews have experienced persecution for circumcision in the past (e.g., Hellenistic bans and European restrictions), so any attempt to criminalise it today can feel existential. This is only heightened by the terrible upsurge in anti Semitism recently.

I agree with sentiments behind calling for a ban - I just thing measures short of a ban are more likely to work.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
SerendipityJane · 04/01/2026 17:46

Rubes24 · 04/01/2026 17:40

One of my kids is circumcised. He was diagnosed with kidney reflux as a baby, so was very vulnerable to UTIs despite almost constant nappy changes! After several UTIs im the first 6 month of his life, which on occasion led to hospital stays and intravenous antibiotics, we were advised by a consultant that circumcision would reduce the likelihood of bacteria entering the urinary system. He grew out of the reflux by age 5 but I wasnt willing fot him to go through 5 years of illness and potential kidney damage. He had kidney scaring from the first UTI so I was desperate to avoid him having any further life long damage. It is absolutely not CSA as some have suggested!

Edited

What has that got to do with non medically necessitated circumcision ?

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 17:45

Haredi families are very large often, ditto some Muslims. It might involve taking away 3 or 4 boys per family potentially. Would girls be allowed to stay with the parents (assuming they're not jailed)?

OP posts:
Carla786 · 04/01/2026 17:43

PennyLaneisinmyheartandmysoul · 04/01/2026 17:34

Shame their “loving parents” can’t move away from the idea they need to mutilate their children!
@Carla786 you seem to have the viewpoint that these parents have no agency in the harm being done to their dc…

Edited

It's not denying agency. It's recognising Haredi , Orthodox, many Masorti & maybe some Reform will not obey a ban. Ditto many Muslims.

If the goal is genuinely to reduce harm to children, then you have to ask:
• What actually changes behaviour?
• What keeps families engaged with health and social services?
• What doesn’t blow up the care system?

OP posts:
blubberyboo · 04/01/2026 17:43

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 17:26

Prosecution would probably mean the children had to go into care if their parents were in jail. Haredi, the strictest Jews,,tend to have large families, and extended family might not be able to take in kids due to that. So care would surely be a likely outcome.

And so be it!!!!

It acts as a deterent for other crimes against children and animals

Those who commit animal cruelty are fined, jailed, banned from owning pets

People who commit crimes against children are fined, jailed, have kids taken away, banned from working with other peoples kids ( yes they should have consequences for their careers too!!), banned from travel to certain countries for having a criminal record, having social workers intervening in their lives

Those are all possible and acceptable consequences and act as a deterrent.

The child should also have the ability to seek financial recourse via civil proceedings without limitations

If the parents still do it then they have to live with the outcome. The child might still have a poor outcome if the parents choose to ignore the law.... but so do the parents and any members of the extended criminal gang family who are involved.
We dont accept for little girls on grounds of religion and neither for boys.

GKG1 · 04/01/2026 17:42

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 14:11

It's not done though bc the foreskin is not needed - it's a marker made to set believers apart. Not simply bc foreskin is believed to be unnecessary.

Very different to US where weirdly there seems to prejudice against uncircumcised foreskins! 🙄

This is crazy, I didn’t know this. So Jewish texts suggest that the way God wanted it signalled that boys believe in him was to cut off their foreskin. Help me understand this. Who is it to signal their belief to? Who checks the penises (peni?! Funny if this wasn’t so horrifying).

How are female believers ‘set apart’?

Next question is - how can this signify a believer when a baby literally is not capable of believing?

Rubes24 · 04/01/2026 17:40

One of my kids is circumcised. He was diagnosed with kidney reflux as a baby, so was very vulnerable to UTIs despite almost constant nappy changes! After several UTIs im the first 6 month of his life, which on occasion led to hospital stays and intravenous antibiotics, we were advised by a consultant that circumcision would reduce the likelihood of bacteria entering the urinary system. He grew out of the reflux by age 5 but I wasnt willing fot him to go through 5 years of illness and potential kidney damage. He had kidney scaring from the first UTI so I was desperate to avoid him having any further life long damage. It is absolutely not CSA as some have suggested!

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 17:37

PennyLaneisinmyheartandmysoul · 04/01/2026 17:34

Shame their “loving parents” can’t move away from the idea they need to mutilate their children!
@Carla786 you seem to have the viewpoint that these parents have no agency in the harm being done to their dc…

Edited

Ofc they have agency - the point is Haredi & Orthodox are unlikely to change their minds even if ot' banned. A ban might entrench it more, espnas Jewish identity feels more threatened due to recent anti Semitism upsurge.

OP posts:
Mischance · 04/01/2026 17:37

sabababa · 04/01/2026 16:58

Has there been a protest by Jewish and Muslim adults who were circumcised as children? Are they demanding your protection?

Of course they aren't. They have no idea what living with a normal penis might have been like. They were not given that choice.

PennyLaneisinmyheartandmysoul · 04/01/2026 17:34

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 17:33

How else do you plan to skin the cat? Fine the parents rather than jail? Community service? That might work better than jail, as in have less adverse consequences on kids.

Shame their “loving parents” can’t move away from the idea they need to mutilate their children!
@Carla786 you seem to have the viewpoint that these parents have no agency in the harm being done to their dc…

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 17:33

SerendipityJane · 04/01/2026 17:32

Maybe cross that bridge when we come to it ? There's more than one way to skin a cat etc etc

How else do you plan to skin the cat? Fine the parents rather than jail? Community service? That might work better than jail, as in have less adverse consequences on kids.

OP posts:
Carla786 · 04/01/2026 17:32

blubberyboo · 04/01/2026 17:21

Actually i used the word "prosecuted" and it was another poster who goaded into suggesting the child could be taken away and "oh dear the care system doesnt have space for them"

I merely agreed that the child may need to be taken away for their safety.
Regardless of the punishment children who have bits chopped off need protected from their parents by normal social worker, criminal and court interventions

Medical procedures are not the same as a religious practice. Circumcision in later life sometimes becomes necessary for medical reasons and that is done for that reason not because of a belief.

yes i do disagree with any law that protects it. I think the practice on infants should be outlawed.

You created the thread. Don't expect us all to blindly agree with you

I’m not expecting blind agreement — I’m asking people to think through consequences.

You say that “children who have bits chopped off need to be protected from their parents by normal social worker, criminal and court interventions”. That sounds straightforward in the abstract, but in practice it means removing large numbers of otherwise loving, non-abusive parents from their children, or removing children from stable families, for a single act carried out in line with long-standing religious norms.

That is not how child protection currently works in the UK. Social services intervene where there is ongoing risk, neglect, or abuse. They do not routinely remove children from parents who have acted with benign intent and are otherwise meeting their children’s needs. Even in cases of FGM, removal is not automatic and intent is carefully assessed.

You are also eliding an important legal distinction.Intent, context, proportionality and ongoing risk all matter. That isn’t “protecting religion”; it’s how the law works across all areas.

OP posts:
SerendipityJane · 04/01/2026 17:32

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 17:26

Prosecution would probably mean the children had to go into care if their parents were in jail. Haredi, the strictest Jews,,tend to have large families, and extended family might not be able to take in kids due to that. So care would surely be a likely outcome.

Maybe cross that bridge when we come to it ? There's more than one way to skin a cat etc etc

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 17:26

blubberyboo · 04/01/2026 17:21

Actually i used the word "prosecuted" and it was another poster who goaded into suggesting the child could be taken away and "oh dear the care system doesnt have space for them"

I merely agreed that the child may need to be taken away for their safety.
Regardless of the punishment children who have bits chopped off need protected from their parents by normal social worker, criminal and court interventions

Medical procedures are not the same as a religious practice. Circumcision in later life sometimes becomes necessary for medical reasons and that is done for that reason not because of a belief.

yes i do disagree with any law that protects it. I think the practice on infants should be outlawed.

You created the thread. Don't expect us all to blindly agree with you

Prosecution would probably mean the children had to go into care if their parents were in jail. Haredi, the strictest Jews,,tend to have large families, and extended family might not be able to take in kids due to that. So care would surely be a likely outcome.

OP posts:
Blushingm · 04/01/2026 17:25

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 17:06

That isn’t actually how child protection operates. Parents don’t automatically lose their children any time a knife or medical instrument is used. Context, intent, risk, and outcomes matter.

Parents consent every day to invasive procedures on children — surgery, biopsies, stitches, even cosmetic procedures — without children being removed from their care. The question safeguarding asks is whether there is ongoing risk, malicious intent, or inability to protect the child, not whether an action feels shocking in isolation.

Religion isn’t being given a “pass”; circumcision is lawful under UK law when performed competently with parental consent. You may disagree with that law, but it’s misleading to claim that parents would otherwise automatically lose their children

You can’t compare biopsies and life saving surgery with circumcision

blubberyboo · 04/01/2026 17:21

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 17:06

That isn’t actually how child protection operates. Parents don’t automatically lose their children any time a knife or medical instrument is used. Context, intent, risk, and outcomes matter.

Parents consent every day to invasive procedures on children — surgery, biopsies, stitches, even cosmetic procedures — without children being removed from their care. The question safeguarding asks is whether there is ongoing risk, malicious intent, or inability to protect the child, not whether an action feels shocking in isolation.

Religion isn’t being given a “pass”; circumcision is lawful under UK law when performed competently with parental consent. You may disagree with that law, but it’s misleading to claim that parents would otherwise automatically lose their children

Actually i used the word "prosecuted" and it was another poster who goaded into suggesting the child could be taken away and "oh dear the care system doesnt have space for them"

I merely agreed that the child may need to be taken away for their safety.
Regardless of the punishment children who have bits chopped off need protected from their parents by normal social worker, criminal and court interventions

Medical procedures are not the same as a religious practice. Circumcision in later life sometimes becomes necessary for medical reasons and that is done for that reason not because of a belief.

yes i do disagree with any law that protects it. I think the practice on infants should be outlawed.

You created the thread. Don't expect us all to blindly agree with you

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 17:20

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 17:15

Exactly.

brit milah is a public ritual, especially in Orthodox and Haredi Judaism.

It normally takes place on the 8th day, with:
Friends / community members. Even if done quietly, people expect it to happen and will ask about it.

In small or insular communities like Stamford Hill, people often know: Which mohel was used etc

Moreover :

Even later in life, circumcision status can matter in certain religious contexts: Use of the mikveh, Marriage expectations, Religious education settings, Assumptions about religious observance

A boy growing up uncircumcised in a Haredi environment would likely become aware of it through religious teaching, not sexual comparison.

OP posts:
SerendipityJane · 04/01/2026 17:19

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 17:16

This must change ASAP

The coroner said there are no national safeguards governing non-therapeutic male circumcision, with no requirements for training, accreditation or registration of those carrying out the procedure, and no rules on record keeping, infection control or aftercare.

I think you and I are supposed to go away, and consider the long history of religious circumcision so we come back with a different answer.

We could possibly split the job - I'll take the first millennia, and you can take the next ?

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 17:16

This must change ASAP

The coroner said there are no national safeguards governing non-therapeutic male circumcision, with no requirements for training, accreditation or registration of those carrying out the procedure, and no rules on record keeping, infection control or aftercare.

OP posts:
SerendipityJane · 04/01/2026 17:15

Religion isn’t being given a “pass”; circumcision is lawful under UK law when performed competently with parental consent. You may disagree with that law, but it’s misleading to claim that parents would otherwise automatically lose their children

In that case, why not prosecutions ? Note the coroners remarks.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqj2r8x2k4yo

The coroner said there are no national safeguards governing non-therapeutic male circumcision, with no requirements for training, accreditation or registration of those carrying out the procedure, and no rules on record keeping, infection control or aftercare.

He also pointed to the lack of a system for obtaining consent prior to the procedure being carried out.

A general view of Entrance b of Hillingdon Hospital. The sign is blue, white and red. In the background, there was high buildings with a dark cloud and some leaves.

London coroner calls for circumcision safeguards after baby death

A coroner calls for regulation of male circumcisions after six-month-old Mohamed Abdisamad died.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqj2r8x2k4yo

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 17:15

sabababa · 04/01/2026 17:13

Everyone would notice if they didn't have a Brit.

Exactly.

brit milah is a public ritual, especially in Orthodox and Haredi Judaism.

It normally takes place on the 8th day, with:
Friends / community members. Even if done quietly, people expect it to happen and will ask about it.

In small or insular communities like Stamford Hill, people often know: Which mohel was used etc

OP posts:
sabababa · 04/01/2026 17:13

Usernamenotfound1 · 04/01/2026 17:10

If baby boys weren’t circumcised within religion, would anyone actually notice?

as in who is looking at these boys? If a mother decided against circumcision, but told everyone the child was or kept the decision private, would it be discovered and how?

even on marriage unless the woman has a bit of experience to compare would they know? Back to my early days of sexual exploration and I wouldn’t have known, and it wasn’t something I even thought about. It was only when I met dh that was circumcised for medical reasons I realised previous boyfriends were intact.

i mean, if you watch Patrick Stewart on Graham Norton, he didn’t know and had to ask his Dr if he was circumcised. He thought he was, turned out he wasn’t. So unless boys are comparing to see the visual difference, would they even know themselves?

Everyone would notice if they didn't have a Brit.

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 17:11

sabababa · 04/01/2026 17:08

Orthodox and haredi communities would 100% leave the UK or it would go underground. It's a non negotiable.

Exactly- people don't understand that in some ways they're (Haredi I mean) more insular than ones in Israel or NY. I'd rather ensure Haredi boys can speak fluent English & get a broad education which seems an issues according to recent investigations, at least to some extent.

OP posts:
Usernamenotfound1 · 04/01/2026 17:10

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 17:01

for Haredi women it would likely have the opposite effect.

If circumcision were criminalised, women who object wouldn’t suddenly gain freedom. They’d be under pressure to keep everything secret, avoid professionals, avoid services, and avoid outsiders. That makes it harder, not easier, for women to say no or ask for help.

Real support looks like confidential healthcare access, safeguarding professionals they trust, culturally competent midwives and social workers, and safe routes for women to push back without risking their family being criminalised or their children taken into care

If baby boys weren’t circumcised within religion, would anyone actually notice?

as in who is looking at these boys? If a mother decided against circumcision, but told everyone the child was or kept the decision private, would it be discovered and how?

even on marriage unless the woman has a bit of experience to compare would they know? Back to my early days of sexual exploration and I wouldn’t have known, and it wasn’t something I even thought about. It was only when I met dh that was circumcised for medical reasons I realised previous boyfriends were intact.

i mean, if you watch Patrick Stewart on Graham Norton, he didn’t know and had to ask his Dr if he was circumcised. He thought he was, turned out he wasn’t. So unless boys are comparing to see the visual difference, would they even know themselves?

sabababa · 04/01/2026 17:08

Fleurdeville · 04/01/2026 17:00

@sabababa so it’s quite black or white for them, there is no grey area with the orthodox? In which case, a ban would seem like persecution given their history in Europe.

I honestly don’t know what the solution is other than time. I cannot reconcile it with what is right for a newborn. I read recently that some scientists believe now that the appendix may offer protection for the micro biome- it’s not as redundant as once thought. The foreskin must have a functional purpose else it would have ( evolutionary speaking) disappeared.

Edited

Orthodox and haredi communities would 100% leave the UK or it would go underground. It's a non negotiable.

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 17:06

blubberyboo · 04/01/2026 16:56

Yes
If a parent took a knife to any other part of a childs body we would remove them from their care.
Why does religion get a pass?

That isn’t actually how child protection operates. Parents don’t automatically lose their children any time a knife or medical instrument is used. Context, intent, risk, and outcomes matter.

Parents consent every day to invasive procedures on children — surgery, biopsies, stitches, even cosmetic procedures — without children being removed from their care. The question safeguarding asks is whether there is ongoing risk, malicious intent, or inability to protect the child, not whether an action feels shocking in isolation.

Religion isn’t being given a “pass”; circumcision is lawful under UK law when performed competently with parental consent. You may disagree with that law, but it’s misleading to claim that parents would otherwise automatically lose their children

OP posts: