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.

Ofc they have agency - the point is Haredi & Orthodox are unlikely to change their minds even if ot' banned. A ban might entrench it more, espnas Jewish identity feels more threatened due to recent anti Semitism upsurge.

One of my kids is circumcised. He was diagnosed with kidney reflux as a baby, so was very vulnerable to UTIs despite almost constant nappy changes! After several UTIs im the first 6 month of his life, which on occasion led to hospital stays and intravenous antibiotics, we were advised by a consultant that circumcision would reduce the likelihood of bacteria entering the urinary system. He grew out of the reflux by age 5 but I wasnt willing fot him to go through 5 years of illness and potential kidney damage. He had kidney scaring from the first UTI so I was desperate to avoid him having any further life long damage. It is absolutely not CSA as some have suggested!

This is crazy, I didn’t know this. So Jewish texts suggest that the way God wanted it signalled that boys believe in him was to cut off their foreskin. Help me understand this. Who is it to signal their belief to? Who checks the penises (peni?! Funny if this wasn’t so horrifying).

How are female believers ‘set apart’?

Next question is - how can this signify a believer when a baby literally is not capable of believing?

And so be it!!!!

It acts as a deterent for other crimes against children and animals

Those who commit animal cruelty are fined, jailed, banned from owning pets

People who commit crimes against children are fined, jailed, have kids taken away, banned from working with other peoples kids ( yes they should have consequences for their careers too!!), banned from travel to certain countries for having a criminal record, having social workers intervening in their lives

Those are all possible and acceptable consequences and act as a deterrent.

The child should also have the ability to seek financial recourse via civil proceedings without limitations

If the parents still do it then they have to live with the outcome. The child might still have a poor outcome if the parents choose to ignore the law.... but so do the parents and any members of the extended criminal gang family who are involved.
We dont accept for little girls on grounds of religion and neither for boys.

It's not denying agency. It's recognising Haredi , Orthodox, many Masorti & maybe some Reform will not obey a ban. Ditto many Muslims.

If the goal is genuinely to reduce harm to children, then you have to ask:
• What actually changes behaviour?
• What keeps families engaged with health and social services?
• What doesn’t blow up the care system?

Haredi families are very large often, ditto some Muslims. It might involve taking away 3 or 4 boys per family potentially. Would girls be allowed to stay with the parents (assuming they're not jailed)?

What has that got to do with non medically necessitated circumcision ?

If the first born is a boy then the parents wont be together to create the second born.

Theyll be in separate sex jails

so the family might be smaller than you imagine.

Same way other parents who abuse their children arent placed together in prison

Sorry the belief answer was faulty. Here's a more accurate one

circumcision isn’t about signalling a baby’s belief in God. Judaism isn’t belief-centred in that way (different from Christianity) Brit milah is understood as a sign of covenant and communal membership, done to the family and community rather than chosen by the infant. No one is “checking penises” — the ritual itself marks belonging, much like baptism historically did. Women are considered fully Jewish by birth under matrilineal descent, so there isn’t an equivalent physical marker.

How long do you think they should be in jail for?

Follow the money...

Yes money I think is why it happens so much in US!

Lol

What a pathetic thread of you trying to defend the indefensible..

They should be in jail for the same length of time as any other knife attack on a child

Then probation on release and supervised access to their one child.

Its enough to interrupt their procreation and think twice about doing it to baby 2 or 3

Along with all the other career ending consequences listed above.

Actually there is a great deal of medical evidence that male circumcision is protective against a number of conditions, including HIV/AIDS.

I find it amusing that an omnipotent god arranges for his people to end up in a country where the practices of his religion are not respected, but none of the supposed wise men (let me know where the wise women are) still can't get the hint that maybe it's a sign ?

"What you are saying is God can't be in two places at once"
"Of course he can, he's omnipresent for gods sake !"

Baby boys dont have sex in order to contract HIV

You’ll actually find that it has mostly been debunked - if it was the case that circumcision did in fact stop someone contract hiv there would be national campaigns promoting it

I cannot speak to the orthodox communities but British Jewish mum friends when my kids were small suggested that the practice of circumcising babies is dying out. They give their sons the option to choose when they are older, but realistically, what teenage boy will electively choose (and pay) to have his foreskin removed? These women followed Reform Judaism.

I will tackle this point by point.

Career ending will not be such an issue for Haredis, as men traditionally study Torah rather than do paid work. Women tend to support the family financially by doing paid work in community. If men work they tend to do similar. Circumcision bans would probably not affect their employment prospects as much as a secular person, as community would not agree with law.

Otoh Orthodox , Masorti & Reform would have more issues as they usually work in the wider community.

Yes, most Jews are not practising or at least not super Orthodox. Reform Jews are much more likely to question at least infant circumcision.

Haredi & Orthodox are a different matter, Masorti too to some extent.

Hopefully once you stepped in after the first male baby was mutilated, with either child protection order or jailing a parent then they would think twice about doing it the next time. Any subsequent children could be placed on child protection orders from birth.

It might be difficult, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

Any conviction of cruelty etc would preclude someone from many types of job - anything that needs a DBS check so nursing, teaching, child care, community carer.

it would be both parents prosecuted - both would have a criminal record

This would actively harm children.

You are proposing:
Prison sentences for parents who are otherwise loving and non-violent

Removal or supervision of children not because of ongoing risk

Pre-emptive child protection orders on babies for something that hasn’t happened yet

Child protection law exists to protect children from ongoing or likely harm, not to punish parents for ideological non-compliance. Removing children or imprisoning parents is an extreme measure used where there is demonstrable, continuing risk — not as a deterrent strategy.

Courts, prisons, probation, and children’s services are already overstretched and
Families would disengage entirely from health and social services & move underground, becoming more dangerous.

‘Harm’ could be considered allowing unnecessary medical procedures - especially when carried out by non medically trained or regulated people

In practice, DBS consequences would hit integrated Orthodox, Masorti and Reform families far more than Haredi ones.

Most Haredi men & many women don’t work in nursing, teaching, childcare or state roles at all, (usually are more likely to be in Community businesses, Retail, wholesale, import/export, IT roles within the community, Bookkeeping or self-employment etc)
and community employment wouldn’t be affected because the community wouldn’t see prison due to circumcision as shameful, they'd see it as persecution.

So this wouldn’t deter the most insular groups — it would mainly punish the families already closest to change.