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)

How exactly do you think newborn baby boys are supposed to fight for themselves?

There is more than one definition of abuse, but this thread is about a particular subject so.....

I think mutilating a child for no good reason and without their consent counts as abuse. I don't really care if that is inflammatory, to be honest. It's just a fact.

I don't think ear piercing is a good analogy.

It is extremely minor, takes a millisecond, causes zero change to the physiological functioning of the ears, if you leave earring out they can even heal up.

You can't grow a foreskin back.

Do you think if ear piercing was banned on under 16s people would still do it? Or would it just be something that you did in adulthood if you wanted to wear earrings?

Do you think parents would take their babies abroad to get their ears pierced, or would the majority not bother?

Medical reasons aside, it should be banned. Let the lad make his own decision about it when he is old enough.
I had an ex who was circumcised. Not religious reasons - his brother had foreskin issues so the op was warranted, but his parents thought it best to have my ex have the chop too. He resents it to this day.

So can you think of a better one? A physical body modifiying procedure carried out on infants for purely cosmetic purposes that is sanctioned by the state?

There must be something. It can't just be circumcision and ear piercing surely?

Clearly it’s not the same but surely there a moral equivalence? It’s the parents choice, born out of their cultural norms, for no benefit to the child. It’s painful for the child and there’s a small risk of complications (albeit smaller in the case of ear piercing).

Unnecessary

I do wonder. I think the only parents who would take their kids abroad would be those for who piercing is cultural perhaps? I don't see the average British person piercing kids ears, and i'd be very surprised if they took kids abroad if there was a ban. What do you think?

In response to: 'is there a better analogy than ear piercing'

I don't think there is one.
There is nothing as unnecessarily mutilating to a child's body as FGM and circumcision.
They should both be banned and religious and cultural leaders should guide their people to unharmful practices instead.

I think it would lead to a huge reduction in ear piercing tbh. I don't think it's all that strongly cultural in general. Some groups such as Travellers might. I can't speak for them.

Same with circumcision. I suspect it would wipe out non-religious circumcision completely. Other groups would depend on the level of religious observance but again, there would likely be a reduction.

I don't really get the piercing analogy...I know it does have risks, but surely none comparable to circumcision? A procedure on the genitalia just feels quantatively different by itself.

The holes caused by piercings grow over... and they are just holes. Circumcision/FGM is the literal removal of tissue that will never grow back.
Totally different.

I honestly don't think there is.

I think in Indian culture it's standard to pierce both girls & boys' ears. Otoh I've seen non-Indian kids here around 7 & even babies w pierced ears (SW London). By children, do we mean under 18s in general? Or younger, I'm guessing? Lots of my friends got their ears pierced before Year 7. I think this is key: a parent can conceivably let their 11yo get their ears pierced. I think they might surely hesitate a bit at least...if their 11yo wanted to be circumcised, or they should.

It doesn't need to be exactly the same. Sometimes it's useful to mentally consider how you feel about the more minor procedure and work through how those justifications work with the other procedure, and vice versa.

So one is ok and the other isn't, but why is that? How much pain is too much on a newborn?

How much risk of complication is too much? What complications are ok (scarring, bleeding, infection) and which ones aren't (body part loss or permanent damage, chronic pain, death).

What about if the serious complications aren't at all common - some baby boys die but not very many. Worth the risk?

I don’t think parents should be allowed to modify their child’s body for non-medical reasons until the child is old enough to decide. It’s the parents’ religious belief in play, not yet the child’s.

Agree

The most sensitive part of the penis is the edge of the glans. The foreskin is there to protect that edge.

With this removed the glans must become desensitised otherwise the boy/man would be in constant pain just walking around - ask any non circumcised male about those occasions where the foreskin got retracted in their pants.

Its basically circumcised men making the decision to mutilate their sons - with the argument 'it didn't do me any harm' but there's no way they can understand what they are missing.

I doubt it's been researched but I might guess it would be natural for circumcised men to prefer rougher sex - only women would know.

Why? Because it hurts a bit and not a lot?

i have no idea why they feel so strongly in favour of it.

Sunk costs fallacy is highly likely in this context.

Because the FGM/circumcision procedures permanently alter the working physiology of the genitals.

Piercing of the ear cartilage doesn't do that so, for that reason, it isn't comparable.

I used to be on the fence about circumcision, seeing it as a matter purely for parents.
This was until I saw a 17 day old baby with a severe wound infection that led to penile tissue death. The baby was admitted the PICU and had to a large chunk of his penis amputated to stop gangrene.
Yes it really was that serious.
The parents weren't even religious. They just wanted their little boy to look the same as his father.

That poor kid, forever maimed, will never have a fulfilling sex life, will have severe body issues, and who knows what else, just for his dad's ego.

I think ear piercing works extremely well as an analogy. The vast, vast majority of those of us who had it done as babies just don't see the problem. We find your obsession with it a little wrird and, tbh, it smacks of intolerance rather than children's rights. I mean look at childhood in the UK. Stuff your kids with crap til they swell up like butter balls, fine - you do you. Give them no freedom, no community and shove them on screens all day - good parenting. Their mental health's in the pan, they're eaten up by anxiety - shall we tackle any of those things? Nah, chavs and foreigners piercing their children's ears is the problem.

No not because of the pain level, circumcision can be painless with anaesthetic - because of the permanent change to the physiological function of the genitals.

It is not the same at all.
The hole from an ear piercing can and will grow over given time.

Circumcision/FGM is the literal removal of tissue that will never grow back.