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.

Stop misleading posters. I didn't say it is acceptable. I said that it was traditionally performed to cleanse the wound using premodern beliefs, and that's it wrong to say the people doing it for all those years were doing it to sexually abuse.

It was standard until most stopped in the 20th century, and a good thing they did. Unluckily some Haredi still do it...

Link for anyone wanting to know what the basis for the sexual abuse claims by pp actually is : (TW for circumcision description)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah#

Safeguarding does not operate on the principle that parents should be separated, families broken up, or future children prevented as a deterrent.

Even in cases of serious abuse: Prison is a last resort, children are removed only if there is ongoing risk & courts aim to preserve family life wherever possible

What you’re proposing goes beyond standard UK child protection.

And they may be 'happy with their lot' because they have nothing to compare it to. You can't miss what was ripped off you as a newborn baby.

The Bronselaer 2013 study reports that 310 circumcised men overall self-reported less glans pleasure, lower orgasm intensity, and more unusual sensations. But it’s an online, self-selected survey (often dodgy esp for sexuality) and can’t prove causation. Other studies and reviews, including meta-analyses, show no clear difference in overall sexual function or satisfaction, and major medical organizations do not interpret this study as evidence that circumcision significantly reduces sexual pleasure

I think infant circumcision is wrong in principle. I'm not as convinced by sexual arguments though- and even if it improved sex, it would still be non consensual.

This.

This is not comparable-

Child Marriage, FGM, Unequal Pay/Recruitment/Employment for Women, Polygamy and Slavery are just a few behaviours we've managed to outlaw.'

None of these are a major commandent of any world religion (thank goodness!) the way circumcision unfortunately is in Judaism and to a somewhat lesser extent Islam.

FGM, Unequal Pay/Recruitment/Employment for Women, - those 2 are not mandated by any world religion at all. FGM isn't mentioned in any major Holy Book. That gave FGM campaigners a major religious tool which circumcision campaigners don't have: that it was definitely not mandated by the religion of Christianity or Islam, or even mentioned.

This makes trying to ban infant circumcision a much harder task.

I remember reading about traditional Jewish circumcision and how it was not originally the removal of the whole foreskin like it is now. The loose skin was pulled forward and a small amount of ‘excess’ cut off, it wasn’t the forced retraction of the foreskin (which is still fully attached to the glans at this age, so it’s literally peeling skin off leaving raw flesh behind)

However, FGM is ‘mandatory’ in certain cultures, but it’s finally being recognised as barbaric and inhumane and is now being banned globally. Judaism and Islam will not implode if infant circumcision is banned, sure, it will make waves, but we no longer live in biblical times (where public stoning, often to death, was an acceptable form of punishment) and it’s time these religions acknowledged this.

Another way to resolve this is to acknowledge that circumcision is a surgical procedure, and if it’s done it has to involve effective anaesthesia (not a topical cream which barely numbs the skin surface) and be done by a properly trained, qualified, registered medical professional.

There are videos online of infant circumcision, babies strapped to boards, legs spread, a dummy dipped in sugar water, a bit of (ineffective) topical anaesthetic cream maybe, then the foreskin is separated from the glans and cut off. It’s not ‘quick & painless, it’s barbaric, inhumane and absolutely should not be allowed to continue.

KitWyn, also, re this comment you made :

'As regards Orthodox Jews, they're sufficiently quiet and few in number, to largely keep under the British public radar. We don't read regular news reports on their involvement in child rape & torture gangs, or plans to commit acts of violence/terrorism. So they don't receive the same attention as UK Muslims, despite their beliefs also being typically misogynistic, homophobic and controlling.'

This is unfair. Modern Orthodox (not Haredi who are stricter) vary widely. Some branches allow women rabbis even, some don't but does this automatically make them misogynist? I disagree strongly with women not being allowed to do a particular role but I don't think it means people raised in that tradition necessarily hate women. I would also argue that many Modern Orthodox Jews are not 'controlling'. 'Homophobic' - many Modern Orthodox Jews tend to think gay people should stay celibate but some do argue for full acceptance (honophobia seems to be less loud in more conservative branches than US style evangelicals, eg, though this doesn't mean it's not harmful).

Haredi are very different but I don't think they should be earned as all 'misogynistic, controlling, etc' People raised in that community, esp men, may have very little secular education, know few non Jews, not u Internet much, so rarely see different views. It's not an excuse but it is a very different environment to start from, and very hard to leave often without losing family etc

That's terrible. It MUST be done in a medical environment with pain relief.

Great point re it not originally being so drastic : From Wiki , TW for circumcision detail :
At the neonatal stage, the inner preputial epithelium is still linked with the surface of the glans.[58] The mitzvah is executed only when this epithelium is either removed, or permanently peeled back to uncover the glans.[59] On medical circumcisions performed by surgeons, the epithelium is removed along with the foreskin,[60] to prevent post operative penile adhesion and its complications.[61] However, on ritual circumcisions performed by a mohel, the epithelium is most commonly peeled off only after the foreskin has been amputated. This procedure is called priah (Hebrew: פריעה), which means 'uncovering'. The main goal of "priah" (also known as "bris periah"), is to remove as much of the inner layer of the foreskin as possible and prevent the movement of the shaft skin, what creates the look and function of what is known as a "low and tight" circumcision.[62]

According to Rabbinic interpretation of traditional Jewish sources,[63] the 'priah' has been performed as part of the Jewish circumcision since the Israelites first inhabited the Land of Israel.[

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]

More telling info : the mid-2nd century CE, the Tannaim introduced and made mandatory a secondary step of circumcision known as the Periah.[19][145][1][2] Without it circumcision was newly declared to have no spiritual value.[1] This new form removed as much of the inner mucosa as possible, the frenulum and its corresponding delta from the penis, and prevented the movement of shaft skin, in what creates a "low and tight" circumcision.[19][62] It was intended to make it impossible to restore the foreskin.[19][145][1] This is the form practiced among the large majority of Jews today, and, later, became a basis for the routine neonatal circumcisions performed in the United States.[19][145]

The original version in Judaic history was either a ritual nick or cut done by a father to the acroposthion, the part of the foreskin that overhangs the glans penis. This form of genital nicking or cutting, known as simply milah, became adopted among Jews by the Second Temple period and was the predominant form until the second century CE.[19][145][1][147]

Yay! A contraption to strap your newborn down for circumcision!
www.medline.com/product/Circumstraint-Newborn-Immobilizer-by-Olympic-Medical/Z05-PF11971

What the hell? I hope this is not commonly used... 😢

Male gential mutilation IS not "non-violent!

None of these things would happen based on ideological 'belief' alone, they would only happen based on active harm having taken place in the form of genital mutilation.

It is normal practice for future children to have child protection orders in place before birth if a credible threat to them exists, parents previously breaking the (hypothetical MGM law) and allowing a child of theirs to be subjected to this is a pretty obvious credible risk to the next male child.

No parent would be seperated from their child/ children if they follow the (hypothetical MGM) law. It's a pretty straightforward decision for them to make.

Did you say something about "non-violent parents" at 1825, want to rethink that statement?!

And let’s not forget that RIC was popularised by Kellogg to try to reduce masturbation.

And yes, once you learn about how RIC is performed, without proper anaesthesia (a GA is not without risk, especially to a neonate) it’s sickening.

A total ban would be great. Even if it saved a few babies from being mutilated it would be a win. A parent who mutilises their DC should have the DC taken away from them. That is how bad it is.

That’s it, thank you, whist I’m sure it still causes some pain and distress to a baby, it’s absolutely nothing compared to the way it’s done now, and doesn’t carry the risk of scarring, bleeding and even death.

And yes @Carla786thats exactly what is used to hold baby boys still whilst they perform cosmetic surgery without anaesthesia.

Is this used by most Jewish parents who do this, though?

Rabbi Saadia Gaon considers something to be "complete" if it lacks nothing, but also has nothing that is unneeded. He regards the foreskin as an unneeded organ that God created in man, and so by amputating it, the man is completed.[129] The author of Sefer ha-Chinuch[130] provides three reasons for the practice of circumcision:

To complete the form of man, by removing what he claims to be a redundant organ;
To mark the chosen people, so that their bodies will be different as their souls are. The organ chosen for the mark is the one responsible for the sustenance of the species;
The completion effected by circumcision is not congenital, but left to the man. This implies that as he completes the form of his body, so can he complete the form of his soul.

Now : the ritual of circumcision IS commanded in the Torah.

But I think a strong theological case could be made that the Torah does NOT command the drastic version that happens today. Moreover, evidence shows historic rabbis do seem to have been motivated by things we know now to be untrue (the foreskin is not unnecessary according to modern research)

Theology might be the most hopeful way of changing the practice to be much milder.

Exactly: if only current theology could reflect this.

Are you sure that kind of device is commonly used in Jewish circumcisions?

FFS, the baby will be held down, and experience pain whilst being subjected to the removal of part of their natural anatomy. You're really desperate to justify the unjustifiable.

IT IS NOT OKAY

I googled and some articles say it's used to help keep a newborn still during certain procedures including catheter placement, imaging, etc. So not necessarily a reflection of terrible pain, though there surely is awful pain if no pain relief is used, and this MUST be mandated.

It's questionable whether such a device IS commonly used in Jewish circumcisions.

It seems that in UK ritual circumcision, a trained mohel typically carries out the procedure with the baby held by a family member, and the more common medical techniques (Plastibell, Mogen, Gomco) don’t generally require a restraint board.

I'm NOT justifying it - I have stated clearly multiple times on this thread that I strongly disagree with infant circumcision.

Questioning the accuracy of whether these restraint boards are used in UK Brit milahs is NOT the same as condoning the practice.