To think she should have gone to jail?

[BogglesGoggles]

Woman posed as a baby’s mother and got him circumcised. She was convicted but given a suspended sentence. AIBU? To think she should have been put in prison?

Link: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7426595/Pharmacist-spared-jail-posing-mother-11-month-old-boy-circumcised.html

Yes I think she should have really and I'm really against sending people to prison (previous worked in criminal justice system) as I always say they should be a danger to other people but she clearly is.

She should have gone to jail as a punishment and as a warning to other fuckers who think it’s their place to make such horrible decisions against the parent’s wishes. I hope the parents have absolutely nothing to do with her going forward.

As for the usual ‘if it had been a man’. The man who pretended to be the father didn’t go to jail either, so that argument doesn’t wash.

I agree with AskingQuestionsAllTheTime. It is male genital mutilation. I know that the mutilation inflicted of females is physically and mentally much more horrific, but neither should be committed on either sex. If you held an adult down and similar to them, you’d go to jail. Doing this to children in the name of any religion or tradition is horrific.

Not to be pedantic, but an SSO is a custodial sentence, and the sentence is within sentencing guidelines, particularly given her lack of prior conviction. Prison is there to protect the public more than to serve as punishment, I'd guess she's related to the child so the risk of her doing it again would be very low. If she fails to comply with the requirements of her order she will go to prison. The article doesn't state the requirements of the order but she may be required to complete rehabilitation activity, an accredited programme to address her thinking deficits and/or punitive measures such as electronic curfew, community service etc. All of which would surely be more useful at challwnging her views and controlling behaviours, than putting her in a low cat prison, at her age when she may well have health issues etc.

FWIW surely this should make us question why it is so barbaric for the grandmother to circumcise the child but if his mother did it would be fine. Circumcision should be completely illegal in all circumstances other than where it is required for medical purposes eg Peyronie's disease

Very occasionally the foreskin is unbroken and a baby dies from the build-up of toxins because urine cannot escape; in such a case some sort of operation is necessary, but I am not sure it would need to be a complete removal.

(My mother knew someone to whose baby this happened, but they were not in reach of modern medicine at the time, so I hope it never happens in this country.)

Maybe if we started to talk about "male genital mutilation" instead of the cosy euphemism "circumcision", people might think a bit less casually about it?

Circumcision is wrong but it is in no way comparable to FGM.

Quite frankly it's a bit sick that people keep bringing up FGM in these discussions.

Circumcision should be completely illegal in all circumstances other than where it is required for medical purposes eg Peyronie's disease

And it's worth pointing out that whilst circumcision can sometimes be necessary for medical reasons, there is never any reason why FGM is ever medically necessary.

Are you saying that cutting bits off someone's genitals is not mutilating them, HugsAreMyDrugs?

How much damage does cutting some part of a human being off have to cause before it is mutilation? I mean, people can get along just fine without one of their little fingers, so cutting off a baby's little finger would not be a bad thing to do?

There’s obviously a lot that’s been omitted here. Mohelim don’t just do it “willy-nilly”, and they are strict about consent forms, but it’s not always easy to assess someone’s age, and maybe she had some sort of face or head covering.

Easy answer: Birth certificate to show relationship to baby, and photo ID for both "parents".

You certainly do live up to your name @AskingQuestionsAllTheTime.

Circumcision is not inherently wrong nor is it in any way equivalent to fgm. In the many countries pretty much all men are circumcised with no issue. People need to calm the f@ck down!

A baby was taken and had the procedure done agains the mums express wishes. If it’s the same story the poor child seemed to have had a bit of a botched job done too. So no, it’s not overreacting. Like grandma taking baby off to get her ears pierced when mum said ‘over my dead body’.

Dear god, the consternation on here when grandma gives the baby it’s first haircut or solid food!

The daily mail article states:

Judge Newbery said the offence merited a prison sentence, but there were circumstances that allowed her to suspend the sentence

As much as people can have a gut reaction to the headline, the facts aren’t there as to what these circumstances were.

In the many countries pretty much all men are circumcised with no issue.
In the many countries where FGM was/is practised on many or all girl children there was no issue until people started to point out that it is a barbaric thing to do to a child.

But I guess some people are happy to feel it is ok to mutilate a male but not a female. I have no idea why this should be.

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime it isn't thought of the same because there are hygiene reasons for boys to be circumcised, in hot countries. Whereas female genital mutilation, is just that, mutilation that can cause death.

But I guess some people are happy to feel it is ok to mutilate a male but not a female. I have no idea why this should be.

The most minor type of FGM involves removing all or part of the clitoris. That's type 1, there are more types, worse and worse. The most minor type of FGM would be like removing the head of the penis. The most severe would be like removing the whole penis. The two are not remotely compatible. There is some loss of sensitivity but not anything like the loss of the clitoris.

BTW I don't think circumcision should be legal but to compare the two as if they are the same is a false equivalency.

Circumcision is not inherently wrong nor is it in any way equivalent to fgm. In the many countries pretty much all men are circumcised with no issue. People need to calm the fuck down

It is an unnecessary painful mutilation. Just because it is common in backward countries doesn't mean it is right.

Circumcision is not inherently wrong nor is it in any way equivalent to fgm. In the many countries pretty much all men are circumcised with no issue. People need to calm the fuck down

And just because it's not as bad as fgm doesn't make it right either.

She should have been sentenced for assault. Which I think she was?

I don’t understand why people are aggrieved at the comparison between this and FGM.
The child was subjected to unnecessary and painful surgery for religious and cultural reasons. The child is unable to consent and the damage is permanent.
Seems like assault to me!

Did you read my last post?

@MrsTerryPratchett I did and I read the article on false equivalency too. Here’s a quote on another article regarding the comparison;
Male circumcision is more sexually damaging [than FGM]. More tissue is excised, more nerves are lost, more functionality is lost. The foreskin has been PROVEN to be the primary sexual tissue with almost all pleasurable properties because the glans has virtually no fine touch reception, mostly protopathic sensitivity [i.e. pressure]. By a simple process of elimination, we can deduce that the foreskin is the hub of pleasure.

Given that circumcision was used to decrease the pleasure gained from masturbation, I’d stand by my original point that it’s mutilation of a non consenting person for religious or cultural reasons. It inhibits sexual pleasure just like FGM. Just because it’s legal, doesn’t mean it should be.

Male circumcision is more sexually damaging [than FGM].

WTF? Seriously? Removing the clitoris, labia and sewing up the entrance to leave a tiny hole for urination, which has to be surgically opened for sex or childbirth is LESS DAMAGING than removing foreskin? Who the fuck wrote that article?

I don't agree with male circumcising either but just no to it being more damaging.

This is interesting...

academic.oup.com/ije/article/40/5/1367/658163

I wouldn't say it is equivalent personally, but not far off

YANBU I do hope that she has no contact with that poor child ever again.