Cultural circumcision in babies/young boys

[junipermarten]

1 of my DS's is circumcised due to a medical issue, he was 3 at the time and it was bloody horrific.

When he was going through it, a good friend gave me tips on after care and offered the number of a private doctor. She has sons who were circumcised shortly after birth for religious reasons.

I personally don't agree with circumcision unless medically required however I respect others choices for religious reasons.

It got me thinking about the high % of boys in the US who are circumcised for cultural reasons, just over 2/3rds. Why is it so prevalent there?

I was having a look at % of male pop per country and the highest were mainly Islamic, but also Samoa was almost 100% which surprised me but apparently its cultural as opposed to religious (I think).

I'm not arguing for circumcision, I am arguing against legistlation banning it @TomPinch.

The law doesn't allow parents to cut parents off any other parts of their baby though does it? The honus is on you to make a compelling argument for circumcision remaining exempt.

Their point is that by your own criteria, you shouldn’t say anything at all.

and let’s clarify, the legislation would be banning it happening to babies who cannot consent, not banning it for adults who can choose.

also a valuable opinion from the self confessed upper class person. I guess belief in the class system is still alive for those who don’t have to struggle against it. Though I never thought the phrase “haves and have nots” referred to foreskins before.

I snorted when he said his wife assured him she likes it better though. Not because there’s a right or wrong answer, personal preference is just that, because every woman in the history of the world has told her husband his is the best penis they’ve ever seen, so it’s hardly the definitive argument he thinks it is.

Of course I should say something. A ban on circumcision would cost me and the UK greatly. The law as it stands has zero negative impact on me.

@TooBigForMyBoots you keep going on about the cost to the UK. You now mention a personal cost to you. Where's this cost coming from then?

I will lose neighbours, friends, binmen, doctors, bus drivers, shop workers etc. It will also mean that I am living under an authoritarian regime that will impose it's morality on those who hold different beliefs.

Banning religious practice never ends well.

@TooBigForMyBoots on that basis should we allow FGM? Sharia law? Where’s the line for you?

@TooBigForMyBoots I second @HermioneWeasley 's request for you to answer the question you have now been asked many times, and which you have dodged with all the adroitness of an Olympic standard slalom skier.

As for the people you mention - they can be replaced. By people who don't cut pieces off perfectly healthy babies in the name of their god.

FGM is a foreign practice with dodgy basis in scripture. Infant male circumcision is an ancient British practice performed by Britons over centuries /millenia and essential 8n some religions.

Infant male circumcision is an ancient British practice performed by Britons over centuries /millenia

A bold statement and one that requires substantiation with evidence. Yes, it's part of Judaism - but ancient British culture? Links, please.

It predates Methodism etc. How far back do you think it goes?

Your definition of 'ancient' is interesting.

To me 'ancient' = pre-Medieval. Methodism is an 18th century thing, so very recent.

FGM is also part of cultural practice among people whose traditions are genuinely ancient, dating back to around the time of Christ. In African tribal tradition it goes back just as far if not further. So does that make it OK then?

Not in this country it doesn't. FGM is a foreign practice.

Judaism has been practiced in Britain for a long long time. I get that it's not your culture, but it is British culture.

You're coming at this from a UK only perspective. I'm coming at this from a global perspective - because cutting bits off babies for no medical reason is wrong no matter where in the world you are.

Besides, there might be members of the Kikuyu tribe living in the UK - FGM is part of their culture and the archaeological record suggests this would have been the case since the third century. So why should they abandon their ancient traditions as practiced for centuries whilst Judaism and Islam are exempt? That's a very Anglocentric point of view. (Other ethic tribes and their traditions are available).

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_England#:~:text=Jews%20in%20the%20UK%20now,fifth%20largest%20Jewish%20community%20worldwide.

What point are you trying to make here? I've acknowledged that you are taking a UK-only view of this issue whereas my outlook is that we need to change these practices on a global level.

Nothing in a Wikipedia page is going to convince me that infant circumcision is moral, acceptable or necessary just because religion. People the world over do horrendous things in the name of religion.

It's almost suggesting that's what went on at Stonehenge

The problem is that, in the words of Spinal Tap, no one knows what they were doing.

Banning religious practice never ends well.

It is not banning a religious practice; it is banning child mutilation, which is wrong in principle, whatever a person's religion.

Male infant circumcision is a religiosity practice.

@pointythings, you want multiple countries to criminalise circumcision. Is that so that UK Jews will have fewer places to flee to, or is it that you want the religion obliterated from the world?

Why are you acting like jews are the only group who circumcise? Youre deliberately ignoring Islam, and the many African cultures where it is common. Objecting to circumcision isn't an attack on Judaism and saying it is, is a lazy argument.

@TooBigForMyBoots you act as if male infant circumcision is the only thing that matters in Judaism and without it, the religion will die out completely. That is plain nonsense.

I don't care what happens to any religion, but the practice of cutting pieces off newborn babies for no medical reason should indeed be eradicated globally. Many religions conducted human sacrifice for millennia - that practice died out, often under pressure from others (druids - Romans, for example). Why are Judaism and Islam exempt from change? Speaking more widely, why should religion have privilege? There is a difference between religion as a protected characteristic (i.e. you can't refuse someone a job because of their faith) and religious privilege (i.e. you can refuse to employ someone who is gay because of your religion, as is currently possible in parts of the US. Do you think that is acceptable?)

@Kabalagala I have repeatedly spoken of other groups that practice circumcision in the UK, including Christians and atheists.

I don't care about what happens to any religion

Good for you. Many adherents to religions, civil liberties campaigners and citizens of countries do care about authoritarian laws banning common religious and cultural practice and the disastrous consequences of such laws on people.

Can you tell me about the countries that have banned male infant circumcision and how they have benefited @pointythings?

Ridiculous hysteria.
Nobody is objecting to mutliating babies because it’s a religious practice, it’s despite the fact that it’s a religious practice.
However, if it IS the case that a certain religion cannot exist without doing it (which I don’t believe) then I would say unfortunately that religion shouldn’t exist

@TooBigForMyBoots to the best of my knowledge there haven't been any countries that have banned male infant circumcision - Iceland has come closest but the law has not been passed.

Not all religious practice is created equal, and your faux naivete in pretending all religious practices are valuable and do no harm shows that you are not arguing in good faith. Infant circumcision is irreversible and does harm to a relatively small but nevertheless significant subset of its victims; these men are left with physical and psychological consequences that cannot be undone. You seem opposed to female circumcision no matter that in some cultures and faiths it is a tradition that goes back to the 3rd century or thereabouts; so why are you not up in arms about that practice being banned? You have also completely failed to answer questions asked as to why the abolition of male circumcision would end Judaism completely when the faith has so many other key aspects, and you have failed to answer my question on why faiths and their practices should be exempt from scrutiny of their practices. It is not authoritarian to object to carrying out non-medical irreversible procedures on newborn babies. If this were about fingers, toes or earlobes, people would be up in arms.

I can only conclude that your moral compass needs work.