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
Danceparty55 · 04/01/2026 09:43

I’m sorry but if you pretend it’s the same as FGM you have already lost the ability to have a sensible conversation.

  1. FGM causes long term medical issues in all cases. It often causes incontinence, loss of all sexual feeling and long term pain. Male circumcision, when done by a medical professional rarely has any long term negative consequences.
  2. FGM is a cultural practise that can be taught against. Male circumcision is directly prescribed by two of the world’s major religions. You will cause huge unrest, disobedience and frankly you wouldn’t win a democratic vote on this in parliament in the first place.

You can disagree with both. But to put them on the same footing is simply not fact based.

Itsmetheflamingo · 04/01/2026 09:42

Enrichetta · 04/01/2026 09:40

AFAIK, in the US most boys are routinely circumcised shortly after birth, in hospital. Seeing that most of them will be Christian, why is it done there?

This is less so the case now. But yes, 20
years ago it would’ve been routine. Attitudes are shifting.

Bushmillsbabe · 04/01/2026 09:42

I don't agree with it either. But as you say, it will continue even if illegal, in a less safe way. Like abortion, despite being illegal, many were still done, but by backstreet practitioners, with people then scared to seek help afterwards for fear of prosecution. Not comparing circumcision to abortion as a procedure, but just linking the risks of making a procedure illegal

It should however be made compulsory that it's done by a suitably experienced Dr, in a private clinic or hospital which is CQC inspected and approved.

sittingonabeach · 04/01/2026 09:42

@Enrichetta money probably

Sterlingsilver · 04/01/2026 09:41

sabababa · 04/01/2026 09:32

Nearly 40% of males worldwide are circumcised. The vast majority of them are perfectly happy with their lot since unlike fgm its performed for different reasons and has very few downsides and even some health benefits.
Circumcising a baby is a much easier operation than an adult. Therefore parents do need to make that call with the child's best interest as for any other decision. A boy could just as easily grow up and regret not having been circumcised as a baby as one who might regret it
The fact that people on mumsnet think they know best than nearly half the world's male population is really quite mind boggling. I suppose its because it's not a British thing to do. You're not better than those billions (literally) of parents who have decided to circumcise their sons even if they are mostly African, Muslim or Jewish

And hardly any of those 40% consented to it, because they were tiny little defenceless babies. That's ok with you is it?

Enrichetta · 04/01/2026 09:40

AFAIK, in the US most boys are routinely circumcised shortly after birth, in hospital. Seeing that most of them will be Christian, why is it done there?

tripleginandtonic · 04/01/2026 09:38

ExtraOnions · 04/01/2026 00:56

…a ban, with criminal records and imprisonment for anyone found to be carrying it out.

If you chopped any other bit off a baby, you would be prosecuted, not sure why we don’t enforce the same rules for Foreskin.

If your God insists that you mutilate babies, you might want to look for a new religion.

Well, human sacrifice was required.

HostaCentral · 04/01/2026 09:37

sabababa · 04/01/2026 09:32

Nearly 40% of males worldwide are circumcised. The vast majority of them are perfectly happy with their lot since unlike fgm its performed for different reasons and has very few downsides and even some health benefits.
Circumcising a baby is a much easier operation than an adult. Therefore parents do need to make that call with the child's best interest as for any other decision. A boy could just as easily grow up and regret not having been circumcised as a baby as one who might regret it
The fact that people on mumsnet think they know best than nearly half the world's male population is really quite mind boggling. I suppose its because it's not a British thing to do. You're not better than those billions (literally) of parents who have decided to circumcise their sons even if they are mostly African, Muslim or Jewish

Irrelevant. Why are babies born with foreskins if not biologically and evolutionary required?? Just because that many baby boys have been mutilated doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. It just highlights how horrific and widespread the issue is.

Also, as an aside, it looks really odd, to those of us who don't see it as normal.

AmpleMintBalonz · 04/01/2026 09:37

Itsmetheflamingo · 04/01/2026 09:33

Linking to a template to safeguard isn’t related to the legal process of banning though is it? You’ve posted it as though you have the solution and it’s little more than a side note.

That is how you identify children at risk of a prohibitied practice and safeguard them.

minuette1 · 04/01/2026 09:37

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 00:59

Thank you! People on MN do not seem to understand how important this is. I strongly disagree with it but I am also a realist.

It needs to be banned in this country. If parents then choose to mutilate their babies abroad then that’s their choice and on their conscience. There should be zero tolerance for it in the UK.

AmpleMintBalonz · 04/01/2026 09:36

sabababa · 04/01/2026 09:32

Nearly 40% of males worldwide are circumcised. The vast majority of them are perfectly happy with their lot since unlike fgm its performed for different reasons and has very few downsides and even some health benefits.
Circumcising a baby is a much easier operation than an adult. Therefore parents do need to make that call with the child's best interest as for any other decision. A boy could just as easily grow up and regret not having been circumcised as a baby as one who might regret it
The fact that people on mumsnet think they know best than nearly half the world's male population is really quite mind boggling. I suppose its because it's not a British thing to do. You're not better than those billions (literally) of parents who have decided to circumcise their sons even if they are mostly African, Muslim or Jewish

If foreskin didnt have a purpose, we would have evolved without it. At 8 days old, or even 8 years old, very few males will have foreskin so problematic that it needs to be removed.

Why are you supporting men being mutilated without consent? Do you think little boys matter less? Do you revel in the idea off such a sensitive and intimate part of a male being cut and removed from him and nobody really knows his pain? Is it like a gender war revenge thing?

Chiseltip · 04/01/2026 09:36

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 00:57

Realistically, many Jews may probably leave the UK for Israel or maybe US if we do that. Or maybe circumcise on holiday in another country. Would we arrest them for doing that on holiday?

I can't see this ending well for Jews, Muslims, or the baby boys who will probably end up being circumcised anyway

Imo it's much better to try and work with the communities to ensure proper medical insight & pain relief.

If you trafficked your daughter for FGM then yes, you would be arrested. So there is no difference.

sabababa · 04/01/2026 09:36

AmpleMintBalonz · 04/01/2026 09:29

The ones that managed to "push" to ensure the ban didnt go through in Finland. Research for yourself why it didnt go through.

I presume you mean the Jews but dont want to say it in case it sounds like the antisemitic trope that it is.

Itsmetheflamingo · 04/01/2026 09:33

AmpleMintBalonz · 04/01/2026 09:32

It is very practical. You ban male circumcision without medical indication.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a8197a940f0b62305b8fc87/FGM_Flowchart.pdf

You use this as a template to ID men and boys who have already had it and then safeguard the boys around them.

Linking to a template to safeguard isn’t related to the legal process of banning though is it? You’ve posted it as though you have the solution and it’s little more than a side note.

Periperi2025 · 04/01/2026 09:33

Itsmetheflamingo · 04/01/2026 09:29

I’m invested in a mature conversation. Banning everything without thought for the practicalities is simplistic and doesn’t acknowledge the implications of blindly legislating against things without mature and informed planning.

I've thought through the practicalities

A) imprison anyone carry out a surgical procedure on a minor without a suitable medical registration
B) strike off any health professional/ doctor carrying out a surgical procedure that is not clinically indicated
C) adapt existing FGM laws to include mutilation of male bodies (not a huge step)
D) the difficult bit - deal with people like you who will resist it based on odd, ancient religious doctrine.

Nothing immature about having a strong opinion on the mutilation of non consenting babies genitals.

sabababa · 04/01/2026 09:32

Nearly 40% of males worldwide are circumcised. The vast majority of them are perfectly happy with their lot since unlike fgm its performed for different reasons and has very few downsides and even some health benefits.
Circumcising a baby is a much easier operation than an adult. Therefore parents do need to make that call with the child's best interest as for any other decision. A boy could just as easily grow up and regret not having been circumcised as a baby as one who might regret it
The fact that people on mumsnet think they know best than nearly half the world's male population is really quite mind boggling. I suppose its because it's not a British thing to do. You're not better than those billions (literally) of parents who have decided to circumcise their sons even if they are mostly African, Muslim or Jewish

AmpleMintBalonz · 04/01/2026 09:32

Hoardasurass · 04/01/2026 09:29

You do realise that the only reason a baby doesn't need sedation is because they cant fight back and stop the "procedure" or move away from the person wielding the scalpel? It still hurts just as much and comes with all the same risks, the only difference is that a baby wont remember the pain when they grow up

Also they didnt even realise that neonates experience pain in the same way that older people do until relatively recently.

AmpleMintBalonz · 04/01/2026 09:32

Itsmetheflamingo · 04/01/2026 09:29

I’m invested in a mature conversation. Banning everything without thought for the practicalities is simplistic and doesn’t acknowledge the implications of blindly legislating against things without mature and informed planning.

It is very practical. You ban male circumcision without medical indication.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a8197a940f0b62305b8fc87/FGM_Flowchart.pdf

You use this as a template to ID men and boys who have already had it and then safeguard the boys around them.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a8197a940f0b62305b8fc87/FGM_Flowchart.pdf

Sterlingsilver · 04/01/2026 09:32

ForCraftyWriter · 04/01/2026 07:27

As an aside I don’t see how anyone thinks this is safer or psychologically less harmful performed on a teenager who requires serious sedation or maybe general anaesthetic, than on a baby who does not

What makes you think a baby finds it less painful than a teenager? Because they can't speak?

It's a disgusting practice and should be banned. We shouldn't be chopping bits off babies because some men wrote it down in a fictional book thousands of years ago.

Hoardasurass · 04/01/2026 09:29

ForCraftyWriter · 04/01/2026 07:27

As an aside I don’t see how anyone thinks this is safer or psychologically less harmful performed on a teenager who requires serious sedation or maybe general anaesthetic, than on a baby who does not

You do realise that the only reason a baby doesn't need sedation is because they cant fight back and stop the "procedure" or move away from the person wielding the scalpel? It still hurts just as much and comes with all the same risks, the only difference is that a baby wont remember the pain when they grow up

AmpleMintBalonz · 04/01/2026 09:29

sabababa · 04/01/2026 09:23

Which religious communities have high status and power? Would you care to elaborate?

The ones that managed to "push" to ensure the ban didnt go through in Finland. Research for yourself why it didnt go through.

Itsmetheflamingo · 04/01/2026 09:29

Periperi2025 · 04/01/2026 09:26

Nobody thinks it's simplistic, just that we should try. You just seemed massively invested in keeping this barbaric religiously sanctioned child abuse going.

I’m invested in a mature conversation. Banning everything without thought for the practicalities is simplistic and doesn’t acknowledge the implications of blindly legislating against things without mature and informed planning.

Lambington · 04/01/2026 09:27

It should be treated the same as any other body modification unless there is an immediate medical need). If people want to do it for religious / cultural reasons it can be done once they are over 18 with full informed consent.

Periperi2025 · 04/01/2026 09:26

Itsmetheflamingo · 04/01/2026 09:19

FGM is banned across all of Europe, and it hasn’t helped them Ban MGM.

Finland got as far as their upper chamber where it was thrown out.

its nice to pretend its simplistic but that doesn't reflect reality.

Nobody thinks it's simplistic, just that we should try. You just seemed massively invested in keeping this barbaric religiously sanctioned child abuse going.

Blushingm · 04/01/2026 09:23

Itsmetheflamingo · 04/01/2026 08:45

The difference is time and societal attitude.

FGM has never been practised officially in the uk. It affects small numbers of women. It became a problem in the uk relatively recently and was easily banned. There was no public opposition to its banning.

It wasn’t generally seen on known about - but there is so much more migration it became known about. People moved to the UK and brought practices with them so it has been practiced but behind closed doors and in smaller communities. As those communities grew it became known about by the main stream and therefore discussed and scrutinised