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.

Nah. Obviously a daft point. You can’t claim exemption to do something abhorrent just because it’s mandated by your religion.

RoyalMail

If you want to eradicate baby circumcision you need avoid getting hysterical and try to understand

At this point you lost all respect and any point that you are making is lost.

But here is my view.

The penis that it is being performed on is not yours.
The person having this done to them cannot consent.

If it is so important to the religion that you belong to, then wait until the person is of an age at which they can actually consent, then ask them if they want it to be done.

Or do you think that they will say no and you would have to coerce them in to it?

abhorrent is pretty subjective though isnt it.
its up to the individual families involved how they practice their religion, and is nothing like fgm.

RoyalMail - have you been in the room when a baby has been circumcised?

I thought it was a men-only ritual?

My friend was a midwife in a strongly muslim area and she said the babies being circumcised were so shocked by the pain that they hiccupped for breath and often went a bit blue.

abhorrent is pretty subjective though isnt it.
its up to the individual families involved how they practice their religion, and is nothing like fgm.

In babies, the foreskin is adhered to the penis. You are peeling the skin away, without anaesthetic and leaving a raw wound, exposing the previously healthy child to the risk of damage to the penis and underlying structures and infection, for no other reason than culture or religion

In what world is that not abhorrent?

considering how important it is to Jews and Muslims I think it's pretty racist to consider making it illegal

This kind of thinking makes me seethe.

Religious or cultural beliefs are not an argument for mutilating a baby's genitals. It's not racist to protect children!

People would argue that FGM is important too. I'm still happy it's illegal.

@RoyalMail I don't think calling people hysterical really helps get the point across. Myself and my husband would consider ourselves pretty much in line with your description of your beliefs however chose not to circumcise.

I think generally there is a very different attitude to Circumcision in the states to the Uk

Is it just the English that go around trying to stop other cultural and religious views?
My theory it's reminiscent of The british Empire where we thought we could rule everyone.

“Is it just the English that go around trying to stop other cultural and religious views?”

People can hold whatever views they like. What they can’t do is perform body changing non medically necessary surgery on people who are unable to consent.

My theory it's reminiscent of The british Empire where we thought we could rule everyone

Thankfully anyone on the internet can have whatever nonsensical “theory” they like. It has no bearing on society.

Cultural relativism isn't it called

Men pontificating about how acutely its fine to have sex with girls if xyz conditions are met

Whilst I think it should be banned, at least in children, I seeth at people comparing it to FGM. It minimises just how brutal FGM is and there’s no need to compare the two anyway.

Is it just the English that go around trying to stop other cultural and religious views?.

Using culture and religion as an excuse to harm others is never acceptable. Consent matters.

if people were going round castrating little boys, then that would be equivalent to FGM.
Circumcision doesnt have negative effects in general, it is equivalent to ear piercing, which a lot of people here think should be banned for children too, which is another thing that I cant see the point of.

It takes a lot to pass legislation. The reason we dont have the same sympathy to it in this country is because neither catholics or protestants ever demanded it.

Branleuse

Circumcision has many negative effects.

You could read up on them, some are posted in this thread.

Is it just the English that go around trying to stop other cultural and religious views?

Did you miss the French ban on face coverings and resulting furore?

@CampingItUp, yes I have been in the room many many times. I’m not aware of any gender restriction but perhaps it’s a thing in Hasidic or Haredi communities? In all of those times I’ve never noticed a particular hiccup but if I did I’m not sure it would give me pause as babies hiccup all the time, and I’ve certainly never seen a baby turn blue! Was this in the UK?

@BertrandRussell there are a zillion things that happen in hospitals and doctors’ offices that aren’t operations. Circumcision is quicker and more straightforward than a blood draw, is that an operation? (To be VERY clear I am talking about the experience of the procedure itself, under normal circumstances, when performed as part of a Brit milah. I fully acknowledge the longer term risk/benefit analysis AND I understand that for some people the extent of the procedure is not the point. I’m just answering the question of whether ritual circumcision can rightly be called an operation.)

@BoneyBackJefferson I’m not advocating a particular position so you don’t need to argue with me. I’m just suggesting that instead of continually repeating what YOU think and feel you might want to give genuine consideration to what other people think and feel. If your goal is to eradicate circumcision from religious communities you will never, ever do it by simply legislating your values on top of theirs. I know it feels simple to you, it feels like this is clearly a violent act perpetrated on a child who has no capacity to consent, and you wonder why isn’t it illegal already? I really do see how many people take that view, open and shut. But that’s not the end of the story. The reasons people do this are not arbitrary, and they are not crazy. If you feel strongly about this I don’t know why you wouldn’t want to actually learn about how it works. I’m not saying your mind will be changed or that it should, but you might at least learn something.

I don’t know if I think it’s racist or if it would be religious discrimination to outlaw circumcision. But I do feel it’s ignorant and discriminatory to prohibit people from practicing their religion without even making a genuine effort to engage with how it all works and why.

RoyalMail

you might want to give genuine consideration to what other people think and feel.

I have given consideration, and I don't agree with them.

A fundamental point of this for me is consent, we either believe in it and it is relevant to all, or the hypocrisy is overwhelming.

Yes there are grey areas where consent can be overridden but none of them should involve cutting off healthy skin.

Over 100 babies die each year in America as a result of circumcision.

Over 100 dead babies, completely avoidable.

I think it's bonkers to think cutting skin from a babies genitals doesn't cause undue suffering or distress, and with no anaesthesia too. It's horrid.

I agree it's wrong in principle, but in reality it is nowhere near as extreme as fgm. I think it's offensive to conflate the two tbh.

Of course it hurts. The foreskin is rife with nerve endings. There’s an old Lancet paper where findings suggested that boys who were circumcised at birth had exaggerated pain responses to subsequent vaccinations.

Circumcised infants showed a stronger pain response to subsequent routine vaccination than uncircumcised infants. Among the circumcised group, preoperative treatment with Emla attenuated the pain response to vaccination. We recommend treatment to prevent neonatal circumcision pain.

In reality, they use an anaesthetic cream, the baby gives a little cry and that's about it, they get fed and go to sleep. Certainly nothing like when my newborn had multiple blood tests and he was red faced, screaming and in distress. That said, as with any procedure, there is a risk of infection. It's safeguarded against with regular check ups and intensive training for those that preform it, but the risk is still there.

Over 100 babies die each year in America as a result of circumcision.

What's your source for that? The "CIRP" seem to have a fairly clear agenda...

I was about to ask the same thing, Cohle. Some people will believe anything just because the internet says so.