To think circumcision for baby boys should be illegal if not done for medical reasons

[Tyarami]

I saw a thread on here a couple of days ago and it got me to wondering why on earth circumcision is still legal for infant males despite FGM being banned.

To me there is no difference, both practises are barbaric unless of course the circumcision is medically necessary. I'm talking about the parents and doctors who allow and inflict this because of cultural tradition.

Why is it ok to do this to an infant male even though FGM is illegal, what is the difference really? To me there is none and would be interested to hear from others about their perspectives.

AIBU to be of the opinion that parents and medical professionals should be prosecuted for inflicting this on infant boys who obviously cannot consent, because of cultural conditioning.

Type 1 FGM IS comparable to male circumcision so it is relevant.

I have a two year old son whom at 4 months old had to have surgery to repair a particularly bad hernia. I found the experience utterly terrifying and it broke my heart, I couldn't fathom him going through something like that just because of cultural norms.

On the last thread I read about the subject a midwife came on and told how she witnessed a baby boy almost die from sepsis after having the op needlessly. It's disgusting

You’re right of course - although it could put Jewish and Muslim baby boys at risk with essentially back room circumcisions.

I think to say there’s no difference between circumcision and FGM is misinformed though.

although it could put Jewish and Muslim baby boys at risk with essentially back room circumcisions

I think this is the only valid counter argument I’ve ever seen.

I understand there are men making this point as removal of foreskin reduces sexual pleasure. I think but could be wrong in the US it is routinely done as an anti- masturbatory thing.
I have a Jewish friend married to a non Jewish man and this was an issue for them when she was pregnant. She hoped for a girl as he was very against the practice and it was causing rowd. They had a boy. I never asked what they did.

I agree, it should be banned unless for medical reasons, or at such time that the male can consent.

Comparing it to FGM does muddy the waters, but all because it is less invasive, that does not make it acceptable. It is still an invasive non essential medical procedure.

@Tyarami

Horrible thing to have to take your baby into surgery. I totally understand your strength of feeling and absolutely agree that circumcision is wrong.

Absolutely, it’s barbaric.

OP I agree with you about circumcision, however, YABU to compare to FGM - as pp said, it's best to have the discussion in its own right.

However, another pp made the point I wanted to about backstreet procedures that are inevitable if it were made to be illegal. I don't knoe what the answer is to that though.

I’m not saying that circumcision is ok but do you actually know what FGM actually entails?
Because the HUGE difference between them is that men lives very happily and wo any side effects from circumcision. Whereas women don’t. FGM means a life time of pain, not just having some bits removed.
That’s where the difference is for me and why I can’t be as horrified about circumcision than about FGM.

kidshealth.org/en/parents/circumcision.html

This American article gives an interesting perspective on circumcision. Particularly the medical benefits of it.

Comparing it with FGM isn't so simple. The reasons behind circumcision for religious purposes are based on hygiene, whereas FGM is based on controlling females by males.

BTW, I'm not Jewish or Muslim and wouldn't even have considered circumcision had I had sons instead of daughters.

I completely agree. No one should be allowed to cut off parts of their children's bodies unless completely medically necessary as confirmed and recommended by medical professionals. It's pretty barbaric imo.
I do think we need to be very careful comparing FGM to male circumcision though. The damage and trauma caused by FGM is very different, and the comparison is occasionally used by idiots to minimise FGM and do a whataboutthemenz.

Totally agree.

Culture, tradition and religion are no excuses for this mutilating of tiny baby boys.

I do think we need to be very careful comparing FGM to male circumcision though. The damage and trauma caused by FGM is very different, and the comparison is occasionally used by idiots to minimise FGM and do a whataboutthemenz

Agreed.

I don’t think it is possible to have a debate about this on Mumsnet as the overall view on this site is very anti male circumcision. I very much doubt that he views are so clear in wider society. The WHO by the way has published information about a study in which they saw that circumcision reduced HIV transmission by around 60%. It is entirely possible that parents are also thinking of their child’s future health, rather than this being purely a cultural relic.

www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

I'd say:

1. Yes, most types of FGM are worse. No, that doesn't make routine male circumcision OK.
2. Male circumcision is very entrenched in Jewish (and Muslim) religious practices. I watched a documentary once about an area in the middle East where they do all the Islamic male circumcisions at about five years old in a big ceremony held every year (I think) with no anaesthesia. Until that video I was not decided on whether I was against it or not, but it was harrowing viewing. You obviously didn't see what was being done but the kid's reactions were enough. However, any government that tried to push back against it would be accused of anti-Semitism/Islamophobia and it would alienate a large section of the voting community so no party would do it, unless there was significant public interest that would be likely to outweigh the backlash. Which there isn't- largely, I think due to ignorance about it and fear of being seen as intolerant by opposing it.
3. The research I have done suggests that religious circumcision is usually carried out by a religious leader, such as a Rabbi, either in a home or religious setting rather than a medical facility. Thus, I think you're unlikely to risk running it underground- it already is, largely. In the USA, most men are medically circumcised, so if you tried to change the law there, you'd struggle, but I don't believe the practice is at all common in the UK outside of religious or medical reasons, so you're unlikely to cause people who would otherwise have had medically safe circumcisions to go through back-channels to procure them.

YANBU. I have very recently had a baby boy in the US. Circumcision is in all of the literature as though it is standard. I am 100% against it when not medically neccessary and my husband supports that. Most medical professionals have been pleased we didnt get him circumcised when they ask so I think things are shifting here.

It is entirely possible that parents are also thinking of their child’s future health, rather than this being purely a cultural relic.

But that protection comes at a price and there are several risks associated with circumcision. Given that the protection afforded is just as effective if people choose to be circumcised as adults, I see no reason for parents to be the ones making this decision. It would be entirely feasible to wait until the child was old enough to make the decision themselves.

I think upon reflection I shouldn't have said FGM is no different, it clearly is a more invasive procedure and much more problematic in regards to how it affects the girls quality of life

What I was (badly) referring to was that, in my opinion, both procedures are abhorrent when not necessary and I strongly disagree with both as they are essentially mutilating innocent babies - medical necessity aside.

Just to counter what a previous poster said, it's not preformed covertly or 'underground'. Most Jewish families around where I am choose to have a doctor do it and a letter is subsequently sent to the GP, the midwives are informed at check-ups etc.

It's an ancient ethnic practise which, while common around the world, is out of step with the UK's western cultural values. As a Jewish person, I would understand if it was banned in this country.

I agree with you OP. I couldn't even read the entirety of that OP, it just made me so sad that she was considering it.

The WHO by the way has published information about a study in which they saw that circumcision reduced HIV transmission by around 60%.

Wasn’t that specifically relevant to men having unprotected heterosexual sex in Africa?

Personally, I didn’t look at my newborn son and think he should be circumcised because I could predict that, as a sexually mature adult, he would be having sex under these specific circumstances.

Most Jewish families around where I am choose to have a doctor do it and a letter is subsequently sent to the GP, the midwives are informed at check-ups etc.

I've had a Google:

'There are no special rules about where the ritual should take place. Most often it is held at the family's home but some people prefer it to be done in a synagogue.

The ritual is performed by a mohel (circumciser), usually an observant Jew, on the eighth day after birth unless there are medical reasons to prevent it happening. The mohel is required to have studied the religious laws and have the surgical skills essential to the operation. In the UK, the Initiation Society of Great Britain and the London Beth Din (Jewish Ecclesiastical Court) oversee the training and examination of student mohels.

The Bris is an important family celebration for Jewish people. It is required that the father and mohel must be present but it's usual for other family members to participate too.'

www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/jewishethics/circumcision_1.shtml#h1

There'd be nothing to stop an actual doctor training as a Mohel, but there's no requirement to be a doctor in order to become a Mohel, though they do receive training first.

I never said it was performed covertly at present, what I was trying to get across is that going underground, if needed, wouldn't actually necessitate much change in the way things are done.

Although you could argue that on a world where it was banned, an official training and licensing body would be much harder to maintain, so the argument could be made that it'd be less safe than present.

Given that the protection afforded is just as effective if people choose to be circumcised as adults, I see no reason for parents to be the ones making this decision

We would have had to make that decision if we’d had a boy. Ex-DH had a hereditary condition that meant it would have been likely that a son would have needed the procedure. Our decision was made by the fact ex-H had to have it done aged 3 and he remembers how much pain he was in after.

Definitely not an easy decision but preferable for me to be done when baby can’t remember.