To think that this is child abuse and should be illegal?

[FlayOtters]

Poor boy. Why on earth do we allow people to continue to mutilate babies' genitals in the name of religion? It's utterly disgusting.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jan/02/coroner-calls-circumcision-safety-measures-baby-death-london?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Okay, but given its already carried out by absolutely anyone who reckons they're handy with a scalpel and feels entitled to cut the genitals of babies, I'm not seeing there being much difference?

Education, sure, but that needs to be alongside a ban, imo.

seems mad to believe that (a) god can create a human who is perfect, apart from their genitalia, that bit they couldnt quite get right

No, that's where regulation comes in. So you say, this has to be carried out under particular conditions and to a particular standard. You optimise these criteria at a level which benefits babies in terms of safety but doesn't make it completely inaccessible so that parents go underground. You put the risk on the practitioner - if the procedure goes wrong they will be scrutinised and could face prosecution.

As part of this, you introduce a mandatory process of signed consent whereby parents must be advised that the practice is harmful and carries a risk of death.

This would introduce barriers and costs which, though surmountable by design, would nudge people away from the practice.

If it is practiced outwith those conditions, then it is illegal and will be prosecuted. But parents have a legally sanctioned route, which is subject to some safety standards and more importantly, is externally scrutinised. Without the unintended consequence of circumcised baby boys having to be hidden from professionals and being more likely to suffer terrible harm or death following the procedure.

Then there is a campaign of education, led by anti circumcision advocates within the community. Once it becomes culturally optional, the whole house of cards begins to collapse. Then you look at criminalising it.

I don't think this can or should be legally sanctioned.

The problems now coming up with FGM in some countries are that it"s being medicalised. Campaigners say this has led to a resurgence in the practise.

https://www.fgmcri.org/thematic/medicalisation/

We're not going backwards. Tom and Emma aren't suddenly deciding their baby boys are going to be circumcised. This is happening to babies whose fathers, grandfathers and greatgrandfathers were also circumcised in infancy. To make it stop necessitates cultural change within minority communities. It's not the wider British public who need convincing - they're against it.

We're not strict about earrings btw. Anyone can have their baby's ears pierced quite literally from birth, by anyone willing to do so.

There is no real comparison to seatbelt laws because that had huge benefits with really no unintended consequences.

Let's be clear by unintended consequences in this instance we would be talking about newborn babies coming to serious harm or dying. As it stands, though I disagree with circumcision completely, it isn't very dangerous at all if carried out under proper conditions.

Is it more important to prevent babies from coming to serious harm and dying, or is it more important to feel good about a (realistically tiny proportion) or practitioners/perpetrators being visibly punished?

Yes and yes.

Babies/children shouldn't have piercings either.

As for the cultural issue - the very last thing the UK should do is legitimise child mutilation in the name of integration. It's abusive and illegal to harm a child; that's a line in the sand.

I'm no longer convinced by arguments about being more accommodating and understanding in order to encourage a gently gently slow change in practises. This is clearly backfiring in FGM. Cutting children isnt acceptable just because its done in a more hygienic manner.

Arguably, a firm and clear position that this is wrong makes it easier for those parents who are coerced into having it carried out to refuse. We've had women on here before in that exact predicament.

The comparison is unhelpful. Whilst I disagree completely with medically unnecessary male infant circumcision, it's a very different thing which on the whole, is far less harmful and dangerous than FGM.

Additionally, male circumcision is complicated by the fact that there are relatively commonplace valid medical reasons for It to be carried out in childhood.

Male circumcision is also already culturally mainstream and completely unquestioned within communities which are very much larger and more diverse than the communities which practice FGM. Including some which are native to and have a long history within the UK.

Within the work on FGM, education and trying to create cultural shifts has been just as important as legislation and enforcement. And huge progress has been made, which mustn't be reversed.

Whereas we have not even begun to do the same work to spread the message within communities that male infant circumcision is harmful and wrong. Nothing remotely like that is being sanctioned or funded.

It is rash to jump from "this is completely sanctioned, legal and okay" to "this is now a crime" and there is no precedent example of this which is remotely similar, that I can think of.

A lot of people will obey the law as long as it doesn't go against their religion. Where law and religion conflict, religion will take priority. In this case I imagine there's a lot of people who currently arrange for medically safe circumcisions who, if it were made illegal, would go for underground options or travel abroad to places where health and safety procedures might be less robust.

I think a lot of people who like to weigh in on issues like this on places like Mumsnet have no religion of their own, don't really understand how religious practice works, and make all sorts of uninformed comments as a result.

If you liken male circumcision to FGM, men may think that as they are circumcised and totally happy with it, what is the fuss about FGM. It slightly undermines how horrific FGM is.

As usual the UK tiptoeing around this because it’s religious and cultural. Whilst FGM is very different they are both done for cultural and religious reasons. Tackle both at once, it’s disgusting. Although I expect the government will throw money at this to normalise it etc, more taxpayer money we can’t afford for people to abuse their children rather than the government standing up and protecting these children.

Its not a myth. I heard it from a doctor only weeks ago. My 6 year old had an infection, his foreskin is too tight apparently so he is going to need a procedure to cut it or remove it (to prevent further infections) germs can get stuck under the skin and apparently its more hygienic to not have it.

But I want to state im against the idea for religious/cultural reasons!!

Really? Tom and Emma as an example here? At least keep it accurate and real, more likely Muhammad and Fatima. It’s a culture practiced in the main (like 99.9%) by the Pakistani community. And it’s abhorrent, and had it been something adopted by others, it would have been stamped out and made illegal years ago in this country. It is child abuse and absolutely has no place in civilised society.

It’s completely unacceptable and barbaric. How any parent can accept it for cultural or religious reasons is beyond me. Utterly gross.

However, FGM is much worse in terms of long term consequences.

Both should be against the law imo.

I think you missed my point or rather it wasn't clear (!)

I was making the point that this practice is not spreading outside of the communities who do it, we're not in any way regressing as the PP bemoaned. Tom and Emma aren't getting their baby circumcised. Which is why I intentionally chose the most white names imaginable. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Apologies. It wasn’t clear (well at least to me!), but I now get what you’re saying….

I read it back and I can see it's not that clear to be fair.

For some Orthodox Jews part of the ceremony the mohel sucks the blood from the freshly cut penis.

That’s absolutely disgusting 🤮 in the name of religion.

Thats a medical reason for an issue that has occured

And just because a doctor says something as a blanket belief it doesnt make it accurate. He may well believe the penis is more 'clean' without a foreskin because he might be Muslim or Jewish and thats the lens through which he sees the issue. He will read research to back his bias up.

The reason your DS is getting infections is because it is too tight. Most boys can adjust the skin to wash and it’s enough to keep them clean.

A very kind & compassionate post!

im glad you're in a position to influence some people!

While I agree that's circumcision is unnecessary, I hugely disagree that it should be held in the same category as FGM/FGC, which is the most abhorrent custom.

Yet one custom is tainted with misogyny, dominance, and control. The two are incomparable. Both wrong on my eyes. However, I can see instances where male circumcision is necessary and in the best interests of the patient. There is not 1 single benefit to FGM. Devoidong a young girl of experiencing pleasure, coping with pain, risking severe infections, and likely infertility is barbaric.