To think infant circumcision is wrong but also that a total ban on it will not work and is not the most effective way to tackle it?

[Carla786]

On the recent threads after the tragic death of the baby boy who died from circumcision performed by a non medical professional, there have been a lot of calls for a total ban on here.
Now, I think infant circumcision is very wrong. But in practice I do not think a ban will work.
Most cultural circumcisions are performed by medically trained people. Backstreet ones need to be cracked down on with the full force of the law, but they are not typical.
Second, circumcision is key in Islam. However, while most agree it’s either compulsory or strongly recommended, age requirements are not as stringent in mandating someone has to be a minor. I think there is some hope sensitive campaigning within the community could maybe make more families consider leaving it until their son is at least maybe an older adolescent with more ability to choose.
Judaism – circumcision is central to Orthodox, Ultra Orthodox Haredi ofc, and more liberal Masorti and Reform. It is extremely unlikely that any law or external pressure would stop these practices, because brit milah is a covenantal obligation tied to Jewish identity. Attempting a blanket ban would likely trigger defensiveness, fear, maybe underground circumcisions and probably emigration of at least some to Israel or elsewhere, rather than protect children.
Focusing on sterile procedures, trained practitioners, and medical supervision would be more likely to significantly reduce risk. Jews have experienced persecution for circumcision in the past (e.g., Hellenistic bans and European restrictions), so any attempt to criminalise it today can feel existential. This is only heightened by the terrible upsurge in anti Semitism recently.

I agree with sentiments behind calling for a ban - I just thing measures short of a ban are more likely to work.

I don't think that poster is a believer- she's just being practical. It's easy to say 'Ban' - not so easy to deal with the consequences.

Yes. But as I have repeatedly pointed out, we have plenty of other laws that have had little effect on the social ills they are supposed to prevent. So there is nothing special about the laws around FGM.

A doctor in the 1870s began saying it would prevent disease and STDs and stop masturbation. Much medical promotion since then - now increasingly questioned!

Exactly!

Exactly.

I think the starting point for genital mutilation - male, female and all genders in between - is that it's irreversible. So the comparisons are more like having a finger or an arm chopped off.

It's recommended strongly in the Hadith though.

Type 4 is more like circumcision yes, but types 1 2 and 3 are more common and much worse than circumcision.

What groups do you think we don't care about?

This is not true. We live in the highly privileged western world with 21st century science. Not eating pork (no refrigerators) and removing the foreskin (no hot water) were sensible practices at the time the Holy Books were written. They are unnecessary now.

The small benefits of cleaning being a little easier without a foreskin, are easily addressed by the ready availability of warm showers/baths, soap and basic hygiene education. We don't remove all our teeth, and wear false ones, just to avoid the need for twice daily brushing and remove the risk of tooth decay. That would be silly.

The small reduction in risk of contracting Aids, suggested by some African studies, is much better achieved with the use of condoms and/or PEP/PrEP if a man is in a high-risk category. The evidence for benefits regarding other STIs is very weak and unconvincing.

Chopping off living bits of a healthy baby's body IS child abuse. It SHOULD be banned.

Exactly

No - it's meant to be a sign to set believers apart. I don't think it's meant to imply foreskins are bad as such.

Even if a total ban didn’t eradicate the loathsome practice, that doesn’t argue against a government showing some backbone and doing the right thing.

There was a most enlightening comments section t’other day in the Daily Torygraph on the subject of banning ritual halal slaughter.
(Cruelty thereof, unwarranted by any modern concerns, exactly the same as ritual circumcision of infants.)
A prominent rabbi (poss. Chief?) had an opinion piece in the edition in which he argued that such a ban would be unfair to observant Jews.

Putting aside his automatic assumption that the proposal was generated only by opposition to the practices of British Muslims, he must have been gobsmacked at the level of support for a total ban no matter whose ancient beliefs it may offend.
Among the many surprisingly reasonable comments were some from Jewish readers who pointed out that the requirement for halal butchering had long been overtaken by modern standards in beef production, whatever about eschewing pork for other reasons.
He explained (as do others here in pp) that Judaism may adapt itself to great necessity such as the law, as can Islam, and he cited other ways too in which observance is not outraged.
(Mere convenience doesn’t meet the case, of course)

As I suspected....😢

It's recommended strongly in the Hadith though. - and?

It does not matter who or what recommends it, it is fundamentally wrong to mutilate a baby.

Of course it will be a challenge to enforce a legal ban on non-medically needed circumcisions; but enforcing many laws is challenging - that does not mean we do not have them in place. Difficulties in enforcing the law are no reason for that law not to be in the statute book.

Medical fact is both the small benefits you listed and what I said about medical complications being greater as an adult.
I never said its the main reason to do it.
But given the small benefits and cultural importance and relative ease as a baby, personal choice.

Yes- but why do you think it's taken so seriously? Within the religion the consequences were traditionally believed to be severe.

I don't agree with it at all but the fact it's part of the covenant makes it more difficult to ban. FGM could be much more easily opposed BY religions as no holy book commands it.

I though Paul was talking about non Jewish converts to Christianity to encourage conversion? And that he still thought Jews should do it?

YANBU however much I dislike it.

But it's the mumsnetters standard answer to everything- have teacher ban the naughty thing so it goes away.

That prohibition is often ineffective; courts police and prisons are at breaking point dealing with the already illegal stuff; that the ineffective bans reduce the legitimacy of the police and the law in the eyes of parts of the population and lead to them turning elsewhere for protection; that organised crime grows on and in these shades of grey- none of it matters.

I'll just get responses saying 'if I can't ban everything I want to, why not legalise murder then', as if it's comparable.

Judaism more so as it's not just a religion it's an ethnic group and culture. Some Jewish families still circumcise even if not religious.

Again, you don't know better than the parents of nearly half the worlds better.
The hubris is breath taking.
And while I personally wouldn't hit my children, I have experienced how other cultures raise their children not to say that the way i raise my children is better even if some parents do use physical punishment.

Its not the personal of choice of the owner of the genitals being mutilated, its the parents imposing that choice.

If infant circumcision was banned, and elective circumcision could only be performed from say, the age of 14 upwards, I'd expect the rate of elective circumcision to plummet. Otherwise, why isn't there a queue of adult northern European men queuing round the block to be circumcised?

Otherwise, why isn't there a queue of adult northern European men queuing round the block to be circumcised?

Because it gets longer in hot weather ?

I never advocated either of those things, I oppose both.. I just explained the suction thing was not done to sexually abuse, it wax a premodern attempt to reduce risk of infection.

Link to my posts & people will see you're lying about what I said. Why are you doing that?

Yes we would arrest and prosecute for taking a child abroad to be mutilated.
Its an arrestable offence for girls and should be for boys