Circumcision should be banned.

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2025/01/judge-and-parents-call-for-boys-to-be-protected-from-circumcision

Article describes an upsetting case of two doctors performing these ops without anesthesia, and with sometimes serious side effects. One boy nearly died.

The National Secular Society is running a concurrent campaign to ban all 'religious cutting' - that includes both FGM and male circumcision. I wholeheartedly agree that no baby or child should suffer in this way. More info:

https://www.secularism.org.uk/religious-surgery/

YABU - circumcision for religous reasons is fine
YANBU - circumcision should be banned (unless there is a medical reason)

In the Bible, circumcision is a sign of the covenant between Abraham & God. It is still taken v seriously by Orthodox Jews especially I think? Ofc between different branches it varies.

Utterly shocking that you have to explain this to some people!

Is anyone actually circumcising babies in the UK for non religious reasons?

I think Haredi & Hasidic Judaism can be quite anti science, similar to some evangelicals, it's not a good thing...

please could you give more details? how did this happen?

Of course it should be banned, a newborn baby doesn't care about religion or its parent's wants, all he will feel is scared and in pain. It absolutely disgusts me that people can do this.

Complex how? Believing in some invisible being who may or not be real isn't an excuse to mutilate a baby. It's fairly black and white.

You're thinking of Type 3 FGM. Types 2 and 1 are different. All are illegal.

Utterly shocking that you have to explain this to some people!

There’s a most horrible video of a circumcision of a baby online. It’s a medical circumcision (not being done for religious reasons, just cultural as the baby boy is American). The way the baby is restrained is disturbing but the screams are absolutely horrific!

Nobody should be allowed to inflict this on a child.

Yes.

You can pay to have it done for any reason. Apparently it's common amongst the aristo class, and obviously expats from countries where it's more common so that baby boys can grow up looking like daddy.

Americans routinely do it because they think it's "cleaner". Foreskins on adult males are routinely greeted with an, "ewww!"

It's learned social behaviour not dissimilar to reactions to "uncut" females in parts of the world where FGM is routinely practiced, though most Americans would baulk at the comparison.

100% agree, it’s a horrendous practice

Yes but is anyone doing it in the UK? Presumably we are talking about banning it in the UK. I'm not sure whether there would be any point in banning it for non religious reasons only in the UK.

Apologies, I meant to refer to Americans in the UK but wasn't explicit. Yes, you'd need to do it for both.

Any legislation would probably phrase it as a geberal ban with an exception made for medical need rather than picking out reasons it wasn't allowed in any event.

It should be illegal to mutilate any child, or non-consenting adults, genitals. No matter how much of the genitals you're removing, or what conditions it's done under. It should never be OK to remove or alter parts of a child's genitals for aesthetics. Fuck we made it illegal to Dock dogs tails but not baby boys foreskins.

Obviously medical necessity, which is very uncommon, is exempt, just like you'd amputate a limb if it was causing harm.

@AliasGrace47 Similarly, I wouldn't expect gay men to know about female anatomy, unless they were involved in an issue like maternity care, dangers of vaginally surgery etc.

Well no, healthcare issues are a big topic in the media, and I would expect the general public to have an awareness of those issues because that in turn ensures that the issues receive the attention they deserve, which then leads to increased funding. Endometriosis has been a big thing in recent years, so I would expect gay men to have an awareness of it and the general structure of a woman's body. Same logic applies to lesbians- I would expect a lesbian to know that the entire head of the penis can be completely exposed without a surgical intervention.

This doesn't apply to me, but some gay & lesbian people find fundamentally unpleasant to think about the opposite sex's genitals.

Those people that you know need to grow up.

Explain to me

If your god is the creator and grand designer. How they manage to leave a bit on skin on the end of a boys knob that needs modification from a humble human 🤔

Makes no sense does it, God creates the eye with all its intricacies but somehow messes up the penis. As per usual, it's for humans to correct "God's mistake."
Couldn't make it up, circumcision actually sounds blasphemous.

@Cunningfungus Are you having a laugh! FGM is a complete mutilation of a girl’s genital area involving removal of her clitoris and often resulting in fistulae. Sometimes the girl’s vagina will be stitched over, only to be ripped open again forcefully during sex. Other effects include infection, scarring, chronic long term genital infections, obstetric problems, urination problems and even death from sepsis. Obstruction of the vaginal opening may lead to painful menstruation (dysmenorrhea), irregular periods and difficulty in passing menstrual blood. The girl is unlikely to ever go on and have a pleasant sexual experience following FGM.

Everything you said is correct, but what you have described is a specific, and very severe, form of FGM, which is not the most common. The term "FGM" embodies a very diverse and wide range of different forms of cutting (indeed, there are many different ways of cutting the penis too).

The least severe form of FGM is "pricking" (FGM Class IV) which is unquestionably far less severe than circumcision in infant boys.

However, such arguments are a distraction and are completely missing the point. It's not a competition of "this thing is worse than that thing." It's the principle that's the important point. Common sense should say that invasive and unnecessary surgery, without anaesthesia, should not be performed on infants who can't consent.

Please please religious people - answer this.

Another study I posted talked about pricking genitals with a needle in a symbolic gesture.

Of course, this is also awful, wrong, and unnecessary, but it is I would say comparable in terms of potential side effects/complications etc to castration.

Anyway, the issue I think is that people are deliberately harming and mutilating children based on a religious motivation. That's what makes them similar.

I can see both sides, for what it's worth.

Practically speaking, I think a very clear, very strong line of 'no hurting babies for religious reasons' might make the whole issue easier to address? No getting lost in the thickets of whether infibulation or circumcision are worse etc, just a very straightforward banning of any and all mutilation of children.

Jesus, I can hardly believe anyone would try to justify it.

Don't hurt kids! That's it!

I think expecting it to be banned in the US is a non starter. They're so backwards about circumcision.

Cross post.

20% of males in the UK are circumcised. The NHS says it's very rarely done for medical reasons.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/circumcision-in-boys/

It's not complex at all.

A woman chooses to grow a baby inside her.

The baby is born with all its perfect body parts intact.

The mother and father then choose to permanently remove some of their perfect baby's body, due to a religion they (not the baby) choose to follow.

It couldn't be any more simple.