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.

@sabababa i understand your logic here - you cannot take an isolated act out of context and judge it by standards from a different culture. The problem I see is that, for example, if some one is raised in the UK they live largely by the standards of that society and accept the responsibilities and rights inherent in that society. There will always be a conflict if they have a different faith as that is something they will need to honour and it doesn’t necessarily fit in to the society’s practices. We need to find a satisfactory way to remedy this conflict in line with both the faith and the society - for those individuals who will grow up and live there. It’s addressing this conflict that we seem to get stuck on - it cannot continue being one way or another we need some compromise. The same I think is true for funerals where certain faiths need to have their funeral immediately and this has caused issues with coroners in London who are trying to manage the burials - not addressing the issue sand it’s complexity as OP points out isnt the solution but something like circumcision is not compatible with modern medical advice ( do no harm) the conflict won’t go away and the discourse needs to be shifted to a mindset of finding a solution - this needs rabbis, etc to get involved and accept that interpretation ( a key part of most faiths) is changeable and adaptive when it protects and grows the faith

You keep saying medical complications……..what are those????

medical fact - the risk is associated with the anaesthetic - why do you ignore this? There are no other medical facts

The fact remains it’s unnecessary surgery for a baby

France is secular in public sphere but they allow infant circumcision. Though the law probs means they have fewer strictly religious people.

You think physical punishment is acceptable (even though it’s not what you’d do yourself)?

Thank you, I agree

How do you explain the fact that parents of boys all over the UK and most of Europe manage to wash their boys genitals and keep them clean with no problems?

Are you one of those Americans that chop your dogs ears off because of infections as well?

Scandinavians are generally pretty liberal if they are religious, generally.

The UK has a different profile. We have more Orthodox Jews & also one of the largest Haredi communities in Europe, who are very strict, in some ways more so than Haredi in New York or Israel.

you cannot take an isolated act out of context and judge it by standards from a different culture.

Oh yes you can. If your society practices human sacrifice - as some have done (and for all we know may still do so) then I for one will judge you.

I think the problem is like much of online debate - we get stuck in polarised positions tgat make nuance impossible - the debate we should be having is not whether to ban it or not - that is a given in the UK under our medical practice - the debate should be how can we support communities through a ban when it is so much a part of their identity - ceremonial rites, symbolical rituals - they all give meaning to people and are very important to their identity - how do we help communities shift from a physical act to a symbolic one tgat respects their beliefs but also allows the necessary underlying physical health integrity of babies to be prioritised? Governments need to decide and be clear on what they are basing their decisions on as we prioritise physical health here first so why isnt the law extended to circumcision?

There needs to be more support for parents who don't want to.

from what I can gather men seem to be generally happy with the choice made for them, if it aligns with their cultural values.

for some reason the major thing seems to be cosmetic, people disliking the look of an uncircumcised penis, not wanting to look different to peers, thinking women would dislike an intact penis etc.

in the US the “hygiene” side seems to be heavily pushed, but then circumcision is a moneymaker for US healthcare. In fact I was reading recently that circumcision is now actually an indicator of wealth/privilege, and the big reason circumcision rates are falling is because people don’t have insurance or their insurance doesn’t cover it.

medically I haven’t checked the literature for a good while but I believe much of the “hygiene” theory is now debunked as it’s nothing a bit of soap, water and a condom can’t sort. I think it’s been shown that circumcision reduces sensitivity and significantly affects sensation.

i read an article the other day by a Jewish scholar who said circumcision started with a ceremonial nick in the foreskin, progressing to a removal of a small part, and then to full removal of the foreskin.

clearly there is a big link to religion, and while I strongly disagree that anyone should be circumscised for anything other than medical reasons, I understand how hard it is to change such an ingrained part of a religion. It has been done though, we ignore other parts of religious instruction as we move into a modern world, so it can be done.

perhaps if we went back to the removal of a small part or the ceremonial nick, so it wasn’t such a clear physical difference, it could eventually die out if it wasn’t immediately obvious who has had it done.

Do all adult European men hang around in the cold naked from the waist down?

FGM is judged differently because the medical concensus is it's much more harmful.

Think the Finns do!😂

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🥶

Only in Newcastle, I am told.

Now that's a good point.

Checking Wikipedia, it seems there is a documented history that it used to be much less severe. I need to check further though...

The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion states that many Hellenistic Jews attempted to restore their foreskins, and that similar action was taken during the Hadrianic persecution, a period in which a prohibition against circumcision was issued. The writers of the dictionary hypothesize that the more severe method practiced today was probably begun in order to prevent the possibility of restoring the foreskin after circumcision, and therefore the rabbis added the requirement of cutting the foreskin in periah.[65]

According to Shaye J. D. Cohen, the Torah only commands milah.[66] David Gollaher has written that the rabbis added the procedure of priah to discourage men from trying to restore their foreskins: "Once established, priah was deemed essential to circumcision; if the mohel failed to cut away enough tissue, the operation was deemed insufficient to comply with God's covenant", and "Depending on the strictness of individual rabbis, boys (or men thought to have been inadequately cut) were subjected to additional operations."[2]

It's not done because of a mistake. It's done because it's believed to have been commanded to set believers apart as a sign of the covenant, not bc the foreskin is a mistake.

So you agree the possible benefits are very small, and irrelevant in the 21st century?

If so, that just leaves the argument that if you're going to have your foreskin removed, it is better to have it done to you as a baby than as an adult man? Really?

Firstly, there are many men who are raised Jewish (and Muslim) who leave the faith once adults. Well, they're not getting their foreskin back when they proclaim their atheism or convert to another religion? That's not very fair. Perhaps they could try getting financial damages from the parents in a court of law?

Secondly, why don't we adjust our religions to reflect today's scientific knowledge. The Ancient Greeks used tales about their Gods to explain seasonal weather and why we need to sow seeds in the Spring and harvest in late Summer and early Autumn. [The Greek Fable involves the Goddess Demeter, the abduction of her daughter Persephone by wicked Hades, and six pomegranate seeds. Long story.]

Why not, just stop with the unnecessary mutilations of babies? Simply stop.

I can find no nuance in the concept of mutilating babies.
While we discuss the non existent nuances thousands of baby boys are being mutilated. As citizens of the UK they have a right to protection under the law.

Hadrianic persecution, a period in which a prohibition against circumcision was issued.

It comes to something when a culture that supported gladiators found circumcision too much.

"What have the Romans ever given us ?"
"Well, our foreskins ...."

could have been a line in the film.

I can find no nuance in the concept of mutilating babies.

That probably means you aren't as clever as those (that say ?) they do ?

That's the usual tack people take to make themselves sound liberal.

Presumably the covenant?

Firstly, there are many men who are raised Jewish (and Muslim) who leave the faith once adults. Well, they're not getting their foreskin back when they proclaim their atheism or convert to another religion? That's not very fair. Perhaps they could try getting financial damages from the parents in a court of law?

In the other thread about this, I did mention the idea. However I was told it's their bad luck and they need to get over it.

They banned it because they wanted to suppress Jews, not out of a desire to protect baby boys.