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?

Exactly - the quantity of skin/flesh being sliced off is not the consideration. The principle that babies should not be mutilated is what this is about.

I agree completely. But it's sad, as soon as anyone mentions that boys have a right to not be genitally mutilated just as girls have this right, they're shot down by people who believe that the two procedures being of different levels of pain/damage means that we shouldn't treat MGM as seriously as FGM.

Anyone that defends slicing off part of a newborn as justifiable/acceptable needs their hard drive looking at tbh.

But how often do men in any community see each other's genitals?

Less complications when done as a baby doesn't make it OK to do to babies though, so that point is moot.

Moot for you perhaps for whom circumcision is not important.

But not if you are an adult male in a community for whom circumcision is hugely important and you would have far preferred that your parents had had it done when easier as a baby.

And if you are said parents, and let's assume loving and caring parents as most are, you might be thinking, will my son thank me for not having been circumcised as an infant? I know it might be hard to comprehend if you don't come from a community where this is important but the vast majority of Jewish men at least are pleased that their parents had made this choice (can't speak for what's happening in the Muslim community). This is also important and can't be dismissed with 'oh, they just don't know they were mutilated'.

I saw a film about welcoming baby rituals in different cultures. I was well into watching the singing and dancing and feasting of one culture before I realized the baby was being taken out of the room to have his foreskin chopped off - I felt sick. How dare they .......

I once saw a TV prog. about a U.K. Jewish community, where the rabbi performed the circumcision. TBH I was amazed that this was allowed - presumably it still is - this wasn’t all that long ago.

It is a conversation that must be had now.

The "neutral" conclusion of some outcome studies does not take into account the alteration in sexual functioning, which the victim cannot quantify as they have never had a normal penis nor normal sexual experience.

Not does it cover the principle of not doing unnecessary non-clinically indicated surgery.

Nor does it cover the principle of not mutilating babies for no good reason.

There are important principles at stake here that override cultural sensitivities.

Less complications when done as a baby doesn't make it OK to do to babies though, so that point is moot.

Oh, I do acknowledge that circumcision should be performed in sterile circumstances, ideally by doctors or at least with some recognized qualifiction. I've stated that repeatedly. I think parents are often misinformed, such as those who don't vaccinate, but the vast majority do have their children's best interst at heart evenif they are unaware of the dangers (a key advocacy role for health professionals).

And I absolutely will engage with the evidence that you link to.I have thought deeply and long about this issue and reached my viewpoint based on the evidence I have seen. No one here has presented to me evidence that I wasn't awre of before. I didn't know that NHS trusts stopped doing non therapeutic circumcision because of litigation and complications but I'm also not willing to accept "trust me bro" as the source since I couldn't find anything on that when I looked. If it's in the BMJ, then maybe an abstract as I dont have a subscription. I am more that willing to change my viewpoint if the evidence changes.

And if not for me, remember that others may be reading this too and they may wish to see the evidence for the points that you are claiming.

I never said they don't exist. Of course they do - where did i say it didn't exist? I've worked in Ethiopia and seen tattoed children with my own eyes. However, there is no medical benefit at all to tattooing children unlike circumcision and it is not an easier procedure to do when they are babies. But even tattoing children isn't illegal in many countries so we can see that parents are given a lot of leeway to decide what is their child's best interest even if you mgiht disagree with that decision.

And i have repeatedly stated that I think that circumcision should be regulated to be safe. Absolutely. Unsafe circumcision is dagerous and unnecessary. Despite your assertions to the contrary, GMC licenced doctors and private hospitals do indeed perform non therapeutic circumcisn.

Any health benefit shown by any medical body? Even american ones?
Lower complications if done as a baby?
Widespread support among the adults to whom this was done?

Well tough shit to you since its legal. And in fact attitudes such as this are why there is such opposition to a ban and there never will be one.

Americans are also capable of assessing evidence. And they said net benefit actually. You dont have to agree but poo pooing because its american is puerile. If they'd found the opposite, you can better your bottom dollar it wouldn't bother you thst it was american.

Should be undertaken by only medically qualified staff in a medical environment (clinic or hospital). Any other way of doing this needs to be unlawful.

I think people well know how important this barbaric practice is to certain religious groups. We absolutely challenge the notion that it being important means it's justified to do. It doesn't matter how important child abuse and mutilation is to a group of people or culture or religion, it's wrong and needs to be outlawed. With serious fines and custodial sentences if flouted. Just like you'd see if a group decided that chopping off a newborn's little finger is required, or their toe, or their labia.

The fact that FGM is illegal while MGM isn't is a conversation as a society it appears we're still not ready to have.

Perhaps if Sabababa won't engage in the tattoo analogy how about scarification?

Done often in infancy in quite a number of tribes, just as culturally significant, if not more so, to those tribes who practice it. But of the people I have met who had it done as babies, they wish it hadn't been, and they were given a choice. The women I have known have tried to to cover with makeup with varying degrees of success. So was it OK for their parents to take a scalpel to their babies, because it was their cultural mandate as parents, causing a small scar but no loss of function and basically zero risk of death unnecessarily? If not, why is ok for others to, in an even more aggressive way?

I don't have to be even willing to change my mind and agree that babies should have their genitals cut in order to want to post about protecting children and their rights. You're allowed to be unwilling to change your mind that you're okay with babies being cut, you do you. I'm not going to bother linking you evidence you won't engage with given you refuse to even acknowledge the notion that parents who are happy for someone to break their licence to perform an unsterile procedure or allow someone unlicensed to perform the procedure cannot have their babies beat interests at heart, whatever they claim.

Are you going to honestly say you don't think it causes babies pain? And that there's nothing inherently harmful about performing a procedure on a non sterile environment that exposed the baby to potential infections?

All the recorded complications that urologists are concerned about in the UK all just made up I suppose. Just a coincidence that we don't have a for profit healthcare system and so surprisingly pediatricians don't circumcise almost half their infant patients.

You also keep refusing to engage in a tattoo analogy. A tattoo won't do any "harm" according to your standards. Why can't someone give their baby a culturally significant tattoo? You said these don't exist but they absolutely do

@sabababa you are missing the point. The AMERICAN academy of pediatrics seems to think it's, at best, neutral.

We are not in America, and you are unlikely to convince most people here, other than some who follow certain branches of certain religions, that performing an unnecessary, painful and potentially lethal procedure on babies is anything other than morally abhorrent.

We stand by our point though regarding religion not being a good reason. The religious communities who practice this will naturally be in opposition. It does not mean they are correct. 'oh but it's super important to our religion', honestly, tough shit. Religion does not trump the right to bodily integrity.

American Academy of Paediatrics
You can read their position paper here: https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/130/3/585/30235/Circumcision-Policy-Statement?autologincheck=redirected

Also Centers for Disease Control (athough less relevant in scope)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5478224/#B1

You may disagree with their assessment but it is clear that they are experts in this area and their assessment is important and consequential and demosntrates that there is not medical consensus that this is actually harmful.

The facaetious "did they ask the babies" makes me think you're not really interested in the evdience since obviosuly parents make the decisions about what they say in the best interest of their babies all the time without asking them.

I have looked. I found only discussions around costs.
Please do link to these papers and i will read them with interest.

If you are't going to change your mind, you stop arguing.

@sabababa whos the esteemed panel? How did the ask the babies?

Except an esteemed body of experts has found that circumcision doesn't harm babies.
And a crime of omission is the same as a crime of comission - if protecting babies is the main issue at hand.
I am entirely reasonable, highly educated, have a background in public health and epideiology, and enitrely able to critically evaluate evidence but - guess what - have a different perspective and conclusion to you.

Absolutely not if you are actually interested in protecting babies.
We require parents to feed their babies adequately.
And, yes, not vaccinating HARMS babies, although I like the word twisting to 'help'. Vaccinating protects a baby's life, not vaccinating leads to a high risk of deaht and damage.

Circumcising has a net benefit according to a review conducted by an esteemed body of experts so therefore your contention of harm is not universally supported either. There is no such equivocation by any professional body on vaccination. Not vaccinatig against measles is harmful and dangerous, for the unvaccinated child and other children too. End of. .

The difference is between taking an active step to harm a baby with no good reason and taking a decision NOT to do do something that is likely to help a child.
They are worlds apart.

They really don't. PP keeps trying to say other parents can harm their baby is X way so why can't others harm theirs with circumcision without realising most reasonable people are saying no one should be able to harm their baby in anyway 🙄