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.

It is not loving to mutilate your children.

How about just jailing those who carry out the procedure

I hope the NHS isn’t being used to unnecessarily mutilate children. It’s no different to FGM to me.

I am not in favour of it at all, but just like FGM I think if you ban it, it’ll just lead to people taking their children abroad to get it done. I think a double pronged approach of educating people about the risks and about safe sterile practices may be better even though my gut says ban it.

I’m a non-practicing Jewish atheist.

Although i actively don’t people (for example at work or my son’s school) that I was raised Jewish because of the current climate, this doesn’t mean Jewish culture should not be called out for doing something wrong.

How is a medical practitioner allowed to carry out a not required medical procedure on a young baby?

As an aside I don’t see how anyone thinks this is safer or psychologically less harmful performed on a teenager who requires serious sedation or maybe general anaesthetic, than on a baby who does not

Much better to ensure safety and regulation for the age the target group find appropriate.

Also what do you mean by “medical setting”? Like ear piercing this procedure doesn’t require an operating theatre, that would be a huge waste of resources.

I don't believe it's wrong and it shouldn't be banned. My three boys were circumcised as babies, and their healing process was very quick. The decision wasn't based on religious reasons; it was primarily for hygiene. Many people may not realise that boys are unable to retract their foreskins until they are around eight years old, which can lead to a buildup of dirt underneath the skin.

People realise. They just… wash.

What gain is that exactly?

I agree with the OP that the conversation around this is immature and unrealistic.

its obvious that the only reason male circumcision is legal is the passage of time. It has been practiced in the uk and other European countries for as long as Jews and Muslims have lived here, and it has also been practised by non Jews and Muslims at times.

It’s therefore generally been socially acceptable, if latterly controversial, and generally- let’s be fair- it’s not courted attention because the procedure is safe and minor.

FGM is nowhere near as commonly practised worldwide and not related to a major world religion. It is not professionally practised and has more serious outcomes. When it became clear that mutilated women were appearing in the uk- in the 2000s- it was relatively easy to ban and have strict bans (can’t travel abroad to do so either)

this is why the banning of male and female circumcision in the uk are very different in practicality.

finally there is no country in the world that has successfully banned male circumcision, which emphasises how hard and unworkable this would be. It’s easy to call it child abuse and demand a ban but that ignores the practicalities the government will be faced with.

Why does it matter? She's a mother whose basic instinct tells her not to allow harm to her baby.

Then wash your child? Everyone else manages it.

Are you American by any chance?
This is just blatantly untrue and completely medically inaccurate.
A young child’s foreskin shouldn’t be retracted because it’s fused to the glans of the penis in much the same way your fingernail is fused to your finger - that’s what stops dirt and bacteria getting in there. Hormonal changes during puberty begin to break down that fusion and the skin becomes retractable. Retraction is a sexual function.
Forcing retraction before natural retraction occurs causes microtears, leaving the child at risk of infection and adhesions forming.
The only person who should ever be retracting the foreskin is the person who the penis belongs to.

The idea that circumcision on infants must be done for dubious hygiene reasons is still so prevalent in the US even though the majority of the rest of the Western World have agreed there is no medical benefit to routine infant circumcision. The “hygiene reasons” can be easily debunked when you look at countries like the U.K. and mainland Europe where routine infant circumcision isn’t a thing - we don’t have a huge number of little boys running around with raging UTI’s and skin infections from poor hygiene 🫠
We don’t get special instructions on how to conduct nappy changes when we have baby boys: it’s no different to little girls. You just wipe what you can see - no manipulating any body parts to get in anywhere. Then when puberty kicks in, and retraction naturally occurs, boys are taught to clean themselves efficiently. It really is as simple as that.

I apologise if there was any confusion. Did you not see where I mentioned that a boy's foreskin typically doesn’t retract until around the age of 8? This can lead to a buildup of dirt and potentially result in infections. This information was shared with me by the surgeon who performed the minor procedure on our sons.

Lots of "common practices" and "socially acceptable behaviour" have changed, fallen out of favour or been banned all through history. Just because something is difficult to ban doesn't mean nothing should be done.

Everyone should just go back to smacking their kids because it used to common practice and socially acceptable??

Is that the same in practicality? 🤨

do you bring “something back” to demonstrate how easily something else can be banned, or is that not just a ridiculous thing to suggest?

Banning smacking (to the extent it is) happened due to social change- it would not have happened in the 50s.

societal change will lead to male circumcision being banned but if that happens at all, it will be a generation away.

Jews and Muslims would need a generation who would supported a ban themselves OR were ambivalent about it to have a societal change.

However, As PP have pointed out due to religious scriptures and the close adherence to them this may never happen.

even Finland- with very few Jews and Muslims in their population- were unsuccessful in making male circumcision illegal. Maybe they’ll succeed in c30 years. So maybe c60 for us to be in the similar position.

it’s not a quick change.

No confusion, I’ve got sons myself who we taught to wash themselves, never had any problems and I don’t know anyone who has ever had an infection from a foreskin.
Your surgeon sounds like a total quack.

You think that’s the case, but have no experience of it because you did circumcise you DSs.
My 2 DSs were not circumcised and have had no issues. They are now late 20s so any issues from a retained foreskin would show up.

Foreskins do not cause problems, or the men in the uk would be demonstrating it.

Honestly the NHS is quite efficient at cost benefit. If it was necessary to remove foreskins, they would do it!

Whilst I think that circumcision on babies for non medical reasons is abhorrent, I do wonder how practical a ban would be.
Would it be like banning abortions, where in practice all you do is ban safe ones? Would more "backstreet" circumcisions occur instead?

This highlights that you have no idea about anatomy.

Backstreet circumcisions DO occur. All the time.
Legitimate medical professionals in the U.K. aren’t performing circumcisions in NHS hospitals or clinics unless there’s a rare medical need and all other non-invasive treatment methods have failed. Religious circumcisions are performed either in private practices if the family can afford it…..or if they can’t, by a quack either at home, in a place of worship or elsewhere. The risk of a botched circumcision, severe bleeding and infection are massive. Pretty sure I read in the news this week that the baby who died recently died from a severe staph infection as a result of his circumcision.

Of course they would. Banning circumcision would not prevent it from happening, the babies would still be circumcised just with even less oversight.

There is a brilliant AMA from an Orthodox Jew on here one of the things she said that interested me is that Jews have guidance which dictates they basically “cause no trouble/ support the powerful” in the country in which they live.

Because they have been expelled from every country they have settled in, over time survival methods been brought in. They basically include following local laws, being good citizens and serving the local community. I was surprised by this but have heard the chief rabbi confirm it numerous times (ie attending church on a Saturday for the kings coronation was fine because he is the head of state)

that would mean that gaining support from the rabbinical court would be vital for the government.

That makes me wonder whether Jews might be more likely to adhere.
However, that adherence may well, as others have said, mean they immigrate to a country where they can practise safely. And the very rich history of Jewish Britain would be lost, which would be a tragedy.
I also think ultra orthodox who are more independent of the Jewish rabbinical courts could ignore the law.

Muslims however whilst generally law abiding of course, do not have this side of their religion and in fact Gods word comes before anything man made. I am pretty sure my Muslim friends (I work in Luton so they are quite traditional but not massively so) would continue to circumcise even if it were illegal.

that's all obviously just my opinion though.