Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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?

732 replies

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 00:49

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
Sparron · 04/01/2026 15:09

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 15:04

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.

Circumcision is a way of making more difficult or uncomfortable for teenage boys to masturbate. It always has been.

It really is that simple. Creepy old sex obsessed holy men in a moral panic about masturbation.

It was ridiculous thousands of years ago, its ridiculous now.

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 15:11

GCSEBiostruggles · 04/01/2026 12:46

When it comes to religious practices you can't do much other than regulate. Perhaps specialist clinics where you can ensure the instruments are at least clean and someone with medical training is in attendance. A register of some sort for post op check-ups. Suggest they defer until the child can comply? It would be a slippery slope into condoning FGM though I suspect.

I don't think so as FGM is proved to have much worse effects.

OP posts:
SerendipityJane · 04/01/2026 15:11

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 15:09

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

Oh, I am well aware of the barbarity of the Romans. And the people they oppressed.

Glitchymn1 · 04/01/2026 15:11

ExtraOnions · 04/01/2026 00:56

…a ban, with criminal records and imprisonment for anyone found to be carrying it out.

If you chopped any other bit off a baby, you would be prosecuted, not sure why we don’t enforce the same rules for Foreskin.

If your God insists that you mutilate babies, you might want to look for a new religion.

This. Should only be done if there are medical issues.

SerendipityJane · 04/01/2026 15:11

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 15:08

Presumably the covenant?

and other fairy stories.

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 15:11

Sparron · 04/01/2026 15:09

Circumcision is a way of making more difficult or uncomfortable for teenage boys to masturbate. It always has been.

It really is that simple. Creepy old sex obsessed holy men in a moral panic about masturbation.

It was ridiculous thousands of years ago, its ridiculous now.

That was the reason in the US. I think that's too much to explain the religious reason just with that, though.

OP posts:
Carla786 · 04/01/2026 15:13

SerendipityJane · 04/01/2026 15:11

and other fairy stories.

Do you & other people using 'sky fairy' type language really think this will, to take a pragmatic view, help convince religious Jews & Muslims not to circumcise?

OP posts:
SerendipityJane · 04/01/2026 15:15

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 15:13

Do you & other people using 'sky fairy' type language really think this will, to take a pragmatic view, help convince religious Jews & Muslims not to circumcise?

Why on earth should a rational person need "convincing" not to mutilate a baby ?

If you think it's OK to mutilate a baby in the name of nothing other than an imaginary friend, then why am I the one who needs to "make accommodations" ?

Sparron · 04/01/2026 15:16

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 15:11

That was the reason in the US. I think that's too much to explain the religious reason just with that, though.

No its not. Religions around the world are obsessed with who, where, when and how you can have sex.(mostly decided by creepy old men in a silly hat)

Moralising and judgement of sin, controlling people's behaviour is the sole reasons religion exist. The Old Testament was just a long form Daily Mail of its day.

sabababa · 04/01/2026 15:20

Sparron · 04/01/2026 14:43

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?

Its not mutilation. And parents make choices all the time in what they see is the best interest of their child. Thats thier perogative. You dont see the benefits, they do.

Not sure why you think north European culture is somehow superior that jewish, Muslim and some African men need to follow their lead but that seems to be the whole premise of this thread.

Blushingm · 04/01/2026 15:21

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 15:08

Presumably the covenant?

Most of the US don’t follow the covenants though?

Its still not a purpose - nothing bad will happen to a baby physically if his penis is left as it’s naturally meant to be

sabababa · 04/01/2026 15:23

SerendipityJane · 04/01/2026 15:11

Oh, I am well aware of the barbarity of the Romans. And the people they oppressed.

I dont think you are with idiotic post
'Even the Romans found circumcision too much'
The total ignorance and stupidity of it made me literally laugh out loud.
This makes me even more sure infant male circumcision will never be banned in the UK

sabababa · 04/01/2026 15:25

Sparron · 04/01/2026 15:16

No its not. Religions around the world are obsessed with who, where, when and how you can have sex.(mostly decided by creepy old men in a silly hat)

Moralising and judgement of sin, controlling people's behaviour is the sole reasons religion exist. The Old Testament was just a long form Daily Mail of its day.

Tell me you know nothing about Judaism without telling.me you know nothing about Judaism.
And im not even religious.

Blushingm · 04/01/2026 15:27

sabababa · 04/01/2026 15:25

Tell me you know nothing about Judaism without telling.me you know nothing about Judaism.
And im not even religious.

She hasn’t mentioned Judaism - she actually said ‘religions around the world’ - where has she mended Judaism in the post you quoted?

SerendipityJane · 04/01/2026 15:28

And parents make choices all the time in what they see is the best interest of their child. Thats thier perogative.

Not in the UK.

SerendipityJane · 04/01/2026 15:31

Blushingm · 04/01/2026 15:27

She hasn’t mentioned Judaism - she actually said ‘religions around the world’ - where has she mended Judaism in the post you quoted?

Guilty conscience ?

sabababa · 04/01/2026 15:38

Blushingm · 04/01/2026 15:27

She hasn’t mentioned Judaism - she actually said ‘religions around the world’ - where has she mended Judaism in the post you quoted?

Well clearly Islam and Judaism are the focus of the thread and reference to old testament. Clearly isn't talking about Buddhism.
If you dont know the basics of Judaism then you're not really in a place to comment on why jewish parents might choose to circumcise their infant sons. Certainly not in the mocking and sneering way its being done on this thread with a nice dose of cultural superiority.

sabababa · 04/01/2026 15:39

SerendipityJane · 04/01/2026 15:28

And parents make choices all the time in what they see is the best interest of their child. Thats thier perogative.

Not in the UK.

Actually yes in the UK. Even for things clearly harmful to children like not vaccinating.

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 15:42

Blushingm · 04/01/2026 15:21

Most of the US don’t follow the covenants though?

Its still not a purpose - nothing bad will happen to a baby physically if his penis is left as it’s naturally meant to be

I didn't mean for the US - it's done for spurious reasons of apparent medical reasons. I meant for Judaism.

OP posts:
SerendipityJane · 04/01/2026 15:42

sabababa · 04/01/2026 15:39

Actually yes in the UK. Even for things clearly harmful to children like not vaccinating.

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2014/12/15/judge-orders-blood-transfusion-for-jehovahs-witness-child/

This judgment, although handed down four months ago, has just been published, and confirms that judges may be resolute, however politely, in the face of parents’ insistence that they know what is best for their children.

Your turn

Judge orders blood transfusion for Jehovah's Witness child - UK Human Rights Blog

An NHS Trust v Child B and Mr and Mrs B [2014] EWHC 3486 (Fam) – read judgment I posted earlier this year a discussion of Ian McEwan’s pellucid and moving account of the difficulties encountered by judges when steering between the rock of parental fait...

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2014/12/15/judge-orders-blood-transfusion-for-jehovahs-witness-child

Usernamenotfound1 · 04/01/2026 15:42

sabababa · 04/01/2026 15:20

Its not mutilation. And parents make choices all the time in what they see is the best interest of their child. Thats thier perogative. You dont see the benefits, they do.

Not sure why you think north European culture is somehow superior that jewish, Muslim and some African men need to follow their lead but that seems to be the whole premise of this thread.

But there are circumstances where parents can be held accountable and/prevented from harming their child, even if they deem it in their best interest.

circumcision isn’t in a child’s best interest, causes pain and risks serious sequalae such as infection or death. There has been more than one case where a circumcision gone wrong has led to amputation of the penis. There are no benefits to circumcising a healthy child with normal anatomy.

refusing or not seeking essential life saving treatment for a child. Insisting on futile treatment that will cause suffering - Charlie Gard for example.

if I decided I believed in a God who required the lobes of the ear chopping off, should I be allowed to do that?

sabababa · 04/01/2026 15:43

SerendipityJane · 04/01/2026 15:31

Guilty conscience ?

Was the snarky comment at me?
Are you implying something?
That i have some to feel guilty about? Please do elaborate or clarify....

sabababa · 04/01/2026 15:46

SerendipityJane · 04/01/2026 15:42

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2014/12/15/judge-orders-blood-transfusion-for-jehovahs-witness-child/

This judgment, although handed down four months ago, has just been published, and confirms that judges may be resolute, however politely, in the face of parents’ insistence that they know what is best for their children.

Your turn

A child's life was at immediate risk. Not remotely the same. Children are also removed from families when at risk of harm.

Oh, and infant male circumcision is totally legal in the UK.

Your turn 🙄

Blushingm · 04/01/2026 15:46

sabababa · 04/01/2026 15:39

Actually yes in the UK. Even for things clearly harmful to children like not vaccinating.

Vaccination is slightly different to chopping off a part of their body……

Some parents believe smacking/physical punishment is in a child’s best interests but the law disagrees

Blushingm · 04/01/2026 15:47

sabababa · 04/01/2026 15:46

A child's life was at immediate risk. Not remotely the same. Children are also removed from families when at risk of harm.

Oh, and infant male circumcision is totally legal in the UK.

Your turn 🙄

Look at the Charlie Gard case

Swipe left for the next trending thread