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.

Has there been a protest by Jewish and Muslim adults who were circumcised as children? Are they demanding your protection?

@sabababa so it’s quite black or white for them, there is no grey area with the orthodox? In which case, a ban would seem like persecution given their history in Europe.

I honestly don’t know what the solution is other than time. I cannot reconcile it with what is right for a newborn. I read recently that some scientists believe now that the appendix may offer protection for the micro biome- it’s not as redundant as once thought. The foreskin must have a functional purpose else it would have ( evolutionary speaking) disappeared.

I know 2 men who were circumcised as adults. Both for medical reasons. Both had what is considered a straightforward recovery with no "issues" Both said the recovery process was long painful. Neither can understand why anyone would willingly do that, especially to a baby. Although we have no way to know if babies find the recovery as long and painful as men.

for Haredi women it would likely have the opposite effect.

If circumcision were criminalised, women who object wouldn’t suddenly gain freedom. They’d be under pressure to keep everything secret, avoid professionals, avoid services, and avoid outsiders. That makes it harder, not easier, for women to say no or ask for help.

Real support looks like confidential healthcare access, safeguarding professionals they trust, culturally competent midwives and social workers, and safe routes for women to push back without risking their family being criminalised or their children taken into care

Well, I would prefer that first we insist all babies are vaccinated. You know, to.stop them dying and killing other kids.
That would be my absolute.
Yet parents are allowed to crack on and spread measles.
So if we're all about protecting kids, how about we focus on what's going to.kill and disable them and others first.
Because if we allow this shit to happen,.male circumcision is nothing.
We're either protecting babies or we aren't.

I mean the UK and most of the civilised world has outlawed the tradition of tail docking, ear cropping and declawing of animals. So why doing it to baby boys, on a particularly sensitive part of their anatomy is permissible still strikes me as contrary.

are baby boys somehow less worth protecting against such acts?

the USA stands pretty much alone in it still being common practice. I have seen many Americans arguing for lopping off bits of animals much in the same way as boy babies- hygiene, it’s tradition, we need them to look a certain way, they are fine with it etc…

I agree, sadly..

Re evolution, I agree with that. Unluckily the religious reasoning isn't that foreskin ks useless - it's that it sets the boys apart as chosen by G-d to follow and shows the covenant.

That isn’t actually how child protection operates. Parents don’t automatically lose their children any time a knife or medical instrument is used. Context, intent, risk, and outcomes matter.

Parents consent every day to invasive procedures on children — surgery, biopsies, stitches, even cosmetic procedures — without children being removed from their care. The question safeguarding asks is whether there is ongoing risk, malicious intent, or inability to protect the child, not whether an action feels shocking in isolation.

Religion isn’t being given a “pass”; circumcision is lawful under UK law when performed competently with parental consent. You may disagree with that law, but it’s misleading to claim that parents would otherwise automatically lose their children

Orthodox and haredi communities would 100% leave the UK or it would go underground. It's a non negotiable.

If baby boys weren’t circumcised within religion, would anyone actually notice?

as in who is looking at these boys? If a mother decided against circumcision, but told everyone the child was or kept the decision private, would it be discovered and how?

even on marriage unless the woman has a bit of experience to compare would they know? Back to my early days of sexual exploration and I wouldn’t have known, and it wasn’t something I even thought about. It was only when I met dh that was circumcised for medical reasons I realised previous boyfriends were intact.

i mean, if you watch Patrick Stewart on Graham Norton, he didn’t know and had to ask his Dr if he was circumcised. He thought he was, turned out he wasn’t. So unless boys are comparing to see the visual difference, would they even know themselves?

Exactly- people don't understand that in some ways they're (Haredi I mean) more insular than ones in Israel or NY. I'd rather ensure Haredi boys can speak fluent English & get a broad education which seems an issues according to recent investigations, at least to some extent.

Everyone would notice if they didn't have a Brit.

Exactly.

brit milah is a public ritual, especially in Orthodox and Haredi Judaism.

It normally takes place on the 8th day, with:
Friends / community members. Even if done quietly, people expect it to happen and will ask about it.

In small or insular communities like Stamford Hill, people often know: Which mohel was used etc

Religion isn’t being given a “pass”; circumcision is lawful under UK law when performed competently with parental consent. You may disagree with that law, but it’s misleading to claim that parents would otherwise automatically lose their children

In that case, why not prosecutions ? Note the coroners remarks.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqj2r8x2k4yo

The coroner said there are no national safeguards governing non-therapeutic male circumcision, with no requirements for training, accreditation or registration of those carrying out the procedure, and no rules on record keeping, infection control or aftercare.

He also pointed to the lack of a system for obtaining consent prior to the procedure being carried out.

This must change ASAP

The coroner said there are no national safeguards governing non-therapeutic male circumcision, with no requirements for training, accreditation or registration of those carrying out the procedure, and no rules on record keeping, infection control or aftercare.

I think you and I are supposed to go away, and consider the long history of religious circumcision so we come back with a different answer.

We could possibly split the job - I'll take the first millennia, and you can take the next ?

Moreover :

Even later in life, circumcision status can matter in certain religious contexts: Use of the mikveh, Marriage expectations, Religious education settings, Assumptions about religious observance

A boy growing up uncircumcised in a Haredi environment would likely become aware of it through religious teaching, not sexual comparison.

Actually i used the word "prosecuted" and it was another poster who goaded into suggesting the child could be taken away and "oh dear the care system doesnt have space for them"

I merely agreed that the child may need to be taken away for their safety.
Regardless of the punishment children who have bits chopped off need protected from their parents by normal social worker, criminal and court interventions

Medical procedures are not the same as a religious practice. Circumcision in later life sometimes becomes necessary for medical reasons and that is done for that reason not because of a belief.

yes i do disagree with any law that protects it. I think the practice on infants should be outlawed.

You created the thread. Don't expect us all to blindly agree with you

You can’t compare biopsies and life saving surgery with circumcision

Prosecution would probably mean the children had to go into care if their parents were in jail. Haredi, the strictest Jews,,tend to have large families, and extended family might not be able to take in kids due to that. So care would surely be a likely outcome.

Maybe cross that bridge when we come to it ? There's more than one way to skin a cat etc etc

I’m not expecting blind agreement — I’m asking people to think through consequences.

You say that “children who have bits chopped off need to be protected from their parents by normal social worker, criminal and court interventions”. That sounds straightforward in the abstract, but in practice it means removing large numbers of otherwise loving, non-abusive parents from their children, or removing children from stable families, for a single act carried out in line with long-standing religious norms.

That is not how child protection currently works in the UK. Social services intervene where there is ongoing risk, neglect, or abuse. They do not routinely remove children from parents who have acted with benign intent and are otherwise meeting their children’s needs. Even in cases of FGM, removal is not automatic and intent is carefully assessed.

You are also eliding an important legal distinction.Intent, context, proportionality and ongoing risk all matter. That isn’t “protecting religion”; it’s how the law works across all areas.

How else do you plan to skin the cat? Fine the parents rather than jail? Community service? That might work better than jail, as in have less adverse consequences on kids.

Shame their “loving parents” can’t move away from the idea they need to mutilate their children!
@Carla786 you seem to have the viewpoint that these parents have no agency in the harm being done to their dc…

Of course they aren't. They have no idea what living with a normal penis might have been like. They were not given that choice.