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?

I think it has worked for FGM in the sense that it is less endorsed by communities subject to intevention schemes across the globe. Rates are reducing but migration muddies those statistics.

What it would mean is that families where there are circumcised men and boys would be subject to the extra measures that families where FGM have occurred currently face when they are identified as such. There would be a greater number than women with FGM.

True. But it does indicate that change is possible when ethics change.

And the point of ritual is that it is… ritual. Ritual can be, and often is, metaphorical or token.

It seems very fundamentalist to me to insist that flesh must literally be cut off.

Scandinavian Jews, in the main, seem to manage without actual flesh removal.

My cousins are Jewish. Their Mum escaped on Kindertransport and was brought up by Jewish relatives here. They maintain Jewish religious and cultural observance but have not circumcised their sons.

I suspect change would happen if the ritual applied to consenting adults rather than babies.

We can't control what other countries allow or what people do if they move to another country.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't have our own higher standards that do not allow the mutilation of babies in our country.

@AmpleMintBalonz I just don't see how that would work.

In the UK especially we have been shown time and time again that we are terrified of upsetting communities and being disrespectful to their traditions.
It's also noted that many females from some religions are living according to different rules and rights than those afforded to their white relgion free peers.

So we don't do it on light stuff how can we do it on issues that are hugely personal and intimate to the victim and family ?
Also intervention would pitt a child against its parents ?? Ie extremely emotionally hard to to do.

Maybe the best route is to establish a clear secular society where religion is hugely surpressed ?

Btw I'm constructing a new religion with some friends.
We shall deign it necessary to chop off the babies little toe age two weeks old. It's our religion and we are very strict on.this.

Oh I see.

From what I have read, some people basically make it known that they or other people around them endorse the practice despite (now) hearing the risks. They would be seen as high risk.

Others are relieved that their children (or they) will be legally protected from it happening to other females around them. They would be seen as low risk..

Some NHS boards in Scotland , I don't know if all, certainly perform it for religious reasons on baby boys over 6 months.

There was a highly publicised case where a British Rabbi came to Ireland to cut some babies, he was arrested scalpel in hand after cutting one, ready to cut another. The rabbi was arrested because in Ireland only trained medical professionals can carry out male circumcisions in sterile, clinical environments with the correct anesthetic. It caused uproar and the European Jewish Association claimed that the Irish legal system is now second to Nazi Germany and that circumcision is a commandment not a crime.

www.eureporter.co/lifestyle/religion/2024/08/02/for-the-first-time-since-the-nazis-rabbi-arrested-for-performing-a-circumcision-in-ireland/

@AmpleMintBalonz how. Who knows they are at risk ?

@Bushmillsbabe the thing is asking for it to be done legally in regulated places is then agreeing it's ok to change your babies physique and take something away, which, I think is hugely ethically problematic.

As part of FGM safeguarding, you can confiscate the child's passport or take them into care if you feel they are still at risk.

Op I half agree with your pragmatic approach

My heart without a doubt says ban outright

Adults can consent to have it done.

However as you say the reality is that unethical back street places will simply thrive putting these children in even more risk and danger.
If they get damaged parents would be less likely to seek help for fear of punishment .

And yes many will simply get done abroad.

The problem is how to out educate two religions that are drilled in from birth ? Islam says you are born islamic ? Not sure about Judaism ?how can you educate around that ?

British law should not sanction child mutilation.

Religion is no justification and is irrelevant.

'And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner, that is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.
Even more of a reason to ban such barbarous acts on young babies.
That is disturbing.

The religion needs to be more flexible and adapt for 21st century. There is no medical advantage in routine circumcision in current Europe, so the Imans and Rabbis must find a way to explain it in their religion.

If they can't do that, they are not WORIADS.

Don’t care what ancient writings say, it’s the 21st century and should be banned. There’s plenty of things we thought was ok in the past now banned. Pretty sure there would be agreement across Europe on this topic too. What adults (18+) choose to do is there choice we shouldn’t be mutilating minors

Do you have a source for this?

Even bans on non medical professionals carrying out male circumcisions aren't adhered to and are compared to Nazi Germany by the likes of the European Jewish Association so I wouldn't hold my breath that a total ban would work.

Were the 1200 recent victims? There would be a big difference if 1200 young girls suffered FGM in the last decade than If the 1200 included females of all ages and some suffered FGM 20, 30, 40 or more years ago it tells us much less about what is currently Happening.

It is to symbolise cutting away sin IIRC. Later on Paul said we can just do it in our minds instead.

The boy/man who regrets not being circumcised can get it done as an adult.
The boy/man who regrets having been circumcised cant have it undone forskins dont grow back.
If its not medically necessary then it shouldn't be done until the male is old enough to decide for themselves

Quotes like that make me so cross about religion. It doesn’t say why - why is a foreskin bad? And if that was the case, surely evolution would have changed it?

That figure is useless unless you know where those women and girls were resident at the time of the procedure. More importantly, all of those 1200 women and girls will now be subject to safeguarding measures of their siblings and children. Identifying them is part of the safeguarding procedure so this is showing what I am proposing in action.
ID women and girls who have had it --> protect young and unborn women and girls who are at risk of it.