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.

You’re talking about a deeply ingrained religious ritual that takes place mostly in private homes. How exactly would you plan to enforce that kind of law?

In the same way as we enforce any other type of law, surely, including the law on FGM? It's inevitable that breaches of the law would be found out whenever medical examinations are needed, and whilst there wouldn't be 100% detection, a few prosecutions would be sufficient to make it clear that the expectation is that this law is to be obeyed.

This is not something which should be written off as only an issue for men.

There have been numerous threads over the years where mothers have felt a lot of pressure from their own families to get their sons circumcised. Often this pressure has come from GMs.

The first duty of a parent is to do their utmost to protect their child from harm. Sometimes the hardest thing is to protect their child from people who mean well.

Have any of you looked into the actual religious reasons for male circumcision or how a bris is conducted?
Stop focusing just on Islam; you may not consider it to be morally correct within your culture, but within the faith it is absolutely morally correct and is a mitzvot.

“Have any of you looked into the actual religious reasons for male circumcision or how a bris is conducted?”

Yes.

Have any of you looked into the actual religious reasons for male circumcision or how a bris is conducted?

Yes. I still consider it child abuse.

Would you cut off any other part of your child without anaesthetic? If not, why not?

I too have looked into the religious reasons and how a bris is conducted. Even with the utmost respect to the religions concerned, I can't see any conceivable justification.

Have any of you looked into the actual religious reasons for male circumcision or how a bris is conducted?

Why is there no equivalent ceremony for baby girls? I don’t mean the circumcision part obviously, but if this ritual is essential to welcome a baby boy into Judaism, why is there no female equivalent?

Fraggling

Men are trying to get this stopped, there are various groups around the world that have been circumcised that say that this is wrong.

Maybe that aren't being loud enough (although Australia and Scandinavian countries are listening).

Or maybe you just aren't listening because it doesn't affect you.

I've never understood why circumcision is so popular in the USA it seems to be the norm. Not always done for religious reasons! Why do so many cultures want to mess with their babies genitals anyway? I'm sure in psychology I read about one circumcision getting so botched the parent brought their son up as a daughter.... but he realised he was a boy as he grew up and it all ended tragically. I'm sure it rarely goes that wrong but why take the risk?

Circumcision was at one stage- possibly even still- thought to be desirable because it was supposed to prevent masturbation. Which is probably why it’s in the Bible too, however it’s dressed up. Goes with not spilling seed..

YANBU

Have any of you looked into the actual religious reasons for male circumcision or how a bris is conducted?

I have a bit. I believe that the bris is conducted without anaesthesia using a scalpel and then blood must be taken from the wound into the mouth of the officiant- some use an instrument to prevent bacterial transfer but some don't. I read that the blood sucking has to happen- a pre-circumcised Jewish convert must have some blood drawn from the penis anyway in order to be considered a Jewish male. Have I got that right?

I also seem to remember reading that initially only the top of the foreskin had to come off but then in some ancient civilisations a lot of business was conducted between men in bath houses where you weren't allowed to bare the head of the penis, so circumcised men would employ a number of tricks to stretch the shorter foreskin to cover the head in order to participate in the bath house meetings. Then the decision was made to take the whole foreskin off to prevent the men doing that. Not sure how accurate that is though.

I've never understood why circumcision is so popular in the USA it seems to be the norm. Not always done for religious reasons!

Because hospitals get paid to do it!

Found from Google...

For patients not covered by health insurance, circumcision for an older child or adult male typically costs $800-$3,000 or more. For example, Gentle Circumcision[8] charges $850 for children 1 to 17 years, $1,500 for adults if local anesthesia is used and $3,000 for adults if general anesthesia is used. Harold Reed, M.D.[9] charges $250 for an initial consultation and $1,750 for the surgery, including doctor fee, anesthesia and facility fee, for a total of $2,000. And The Circumcision Center[10] in Georgia charges $2,500 if the foreskin is retractable and $3,000 if the foreskin is not retractable.

"within the faith it is absolutely morally correct"

"faith" is a bullshit reason for anything. If the only reason you have for doing something is because a fictional book tells you too, you need a better reason.

I thought the usa became v pro circumcision because of some funny ideas about health and sexuality... like kellog was a loon about this sort of stuff... can't remember detail google might help

'Circumcision in Canada followed the pattern of other English speaking countries, with the practice being adopted during the 1900s, to prevent masturbation and other perceived issues of the time'

Australia seems to have had a high rate as well.

It never caught on in uk or ireland afaik so the wiki 'English speaking' thing is inaccurate. I wonder why the difference.

Because hospitals get paid to do it!

Yep - see also smear tests in pregnancy despite them being utterly useless.

Oh, and every pregnant woman having multiple obstetrician appointments and every child having a paediatrician.

Totally agree with Hoppinggreen.

I thought circumcision in The uk was an upper middle class thing. Not sure why I thought that. Is it true?

It certainly used to be. I think it was part of the constant battle to prevent masturbation.....

I thought circumcision in The uk was an upper middle class thing. Not sure why I thought that. Is it true?

Jew stereotyping?

“Jew stereotyping?
Eh?

you may not consider it to be morally correct within your culture, but within the faith it is absolutely morally correct

In the 16th century it was absolutely morally correct within the Christian faith to burn people at the stake. They were of course wrong, and the fact that this was permitted and indeed used by the church didn't make it any the less wrong - if anything, it made it considerably worse.