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)

I really don't care who this offends but if you cut your child's foreskin off for religious or cultural reasons or because it's 'the done thing' where you live, then you're a child abuser. Your sons foreskin is not yours to decide what to do with. If your 'god' or 'community' call for you to mutilate your child and you go along with it then you're brain dead.

If your son wants to remove his foreskin when he's 18 to impress his 'god', or because it's the cultural norm then that's up to him. But to do it to an infant with no say is abhorrent.

Maybe I should have clarified that I meant for children in the OP.

Adults can do what they want with their bodies, for the most part, although I don't think the NHS should fund body modification.

whilst I appreciate the consequences for many (not all) children might be different. At their core are they not both ideologically motivated with no benefit to the recipient? I ask this genuinely, in what ways do you consider them so extremely different?

In theory I would support ban on all non-medical changes in children. Cultural and religious respect must have some borders when it comes to application on children - who might not choose the same cultural/religious approach later in life.

I am very curious how many of those (men) saying male circumcision in children is necessary for religious reasons would actually decide to go and have it done on themselves should they had they choice as adults.

In practice, the moment we say it does include things like infant ear rings piercing and children stick-out ears surgery, my own central European atheist country would start shouting about destroying our culture.

In the end, sticking it together makes the very harmful stuff like FGM looks less bad, as part of banning because of ideology of non-ideology, and some people would defend it just to defend their practices.

Yeah I've always found this odd. I wonder how it came about? Given a large proportion of Americans are of either European, Latin American or African descent and none of these societies routinely circumcise their babies it seems strange that it has become so commonplace.

I’m British but live in the US (my DH is American). I think about 70 percent of US born male babies were circumcised when he was born, plus he’s Jewish, so… When our son was born in the UK he asked the midwives about it being done on the NHS and they were both bemused and a bit horrified! I was dead against it and after doing some research he agreed with me. I asked American friends about it and they were convinced we’d done the wrong thing - they seemed to think foreskins on their own cause infection (!?) or that having one is somehow dirty, and that that was a good enough reason to mutilate a newborn. It’s still a standard procedure here, nothing to do with religion - I think over half of newborn boys are still circumcised. Blows my mind.

Also found this from the second article in the OP quite shocking:

'There are thought to be well over 100,000 women and girls affected by FGM living in the UK. '
...
'There have been only two successful prosecutions for FGM since it was banned in 1985'

It’s a horrible practice. I actually have a cousin whose marriage ended over the subject. She (a Sikh) was married to a Jewish American guy who always said he wasn’t that fussed about his sons being circumcised. Different story when their son was born. It was awful for my cousin with her having to argue over her newborn son’s penile sensitivity.

And:

'Between 1988 and 2014, there were 22,000 harms recorded by the NHS resulting from circumcision. They included scarring and full penis amputation. In 2011, nearly a dozen infant boys were treated for life-threatening haemorrhage, shock or sepsis as a result of circumcision at a single children's hospital in Birmingham. At least three babies have bled to death from circumcision in the UK since 2009: Celian Noumbiwe, Angelo Ofori-Mintah, and Goodluck Caubergs.'

Any cutting of children without medical reason should be outlawed.

I don't like lumping FGM with male circumcision as they are completely different in terms of the degree of injury and damage and harm, with FGM very manifestly being off the scale on this compared to male circumcision. The reasons are also completely incomparable, with FGM being done for cultural reasons to limit or prevent a woman's capacity to enjoy sex so that she remains faithful, or/and to be able to be sure she retains her virginity until marriage ( with her husband having to literally tear her open with his penis or even a knife to be able to enter her). Male circumcision is not done for these reasons.

I think they should be two separate campaigns.

Yep. It seems pretty straightforward to me.

I think circumcisions (and most surgical body modification) on minors should be banned for any reason other than medical necessity.

What consenting adult men do with their genitals is non of my business.

Most of my male Muslim friends wish they were in tact and my Muslim GP is also against it.

Agree wholeheartedly with this. It should never be done for any reason other than medical.

I see your point, but FGM varies enormously, from minor cutting that seems very comparable to male circumcision in terms of being a skin removal procedure, to more extreme FGM that may include more drastic cutting and stitching etc.

From what I've read the more extreme types of FGM are thankfully by far in the minority internationally, although I don't know UK figures.

It’s not 99 percent here in the States at all - over half of newborns are circumcised and around 80 percent of older males (14 plus). It varies by ethnicity too. But yes, it’s far higher than the UK.

Why are th US into this ?

Yes, the culture of circumcision in America is changing. It used to be the norm, regardless of religious affiliation because it was seen as "healthier". As evidence against that grows so do the number of pediatricians who recommend it and it's use is definitely declining.

How strange. It’s natural to have a foreskin. Imagine having your clitoral hood removed!!!

https://www.who.int/teams/sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-research-(srh)/areas-of-work/female-genital-mutilation/types-of-female-genital-mutilation

Classification of FGM by WHO.

Info:

https://nationalfgmcentre.org.uk/fgm/

Because there is a significant difference between removing a foreskin from a penis and scraping a girls clitoris away and sewing her labia together so tightly she cannot part with menstrual fluid or enjoy sexual pleasure

It’s mutilating a baby boys body before they are old enough to consent. Unless there is a good medical reason it should be banned.

I don't think any procedures should be carried out on a child without medical necessity. From as mild as ear piercing to as severe as genital surgery. If there is no medical need for the procedure, it should not happen. Children should not suffer unnecessarily.

Here's a US hospital selling circumcision:

https://www.childrenshospital.org/treatments/circumcision

Talks about the potential benefits but nowhere is the word 'risk' used. Talk of complication is hand-waved away.

At an educated guess, I’d say American medics are more inclined to perform unnecessary procedures/tests to milk insurance companies, including circumcision. Loads of people here genuinely believe they’re doing it for the right reasons (cleanliness, protection from infection or injury). I’d imagine though that if the risks really were that high then it would be offered by national health services in the UK and elsewhere.