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.

Not sure if it’s used in Jewish ceremonies, but it’s definitely used in hospitals. Even if it’s not used in Jewish ceremonies babies are still held/restrained whist a portion of highly sensitive healthy skin is cut from them, without anaesthesia.

If a religion suddenly became popular today which 'commanded' cutting off baby girl's noses would you be defending that too?

As I said upthread, it seems not to be used in these ceremonies usually.

Now : is pain relief used ?

In strictly traditional Haredi settings, many families rely on comforting measures (feeding, holding), and some do not use medical pain relief, though others do ask for it. It depends on the mohel and parental preference.

In Modern Orthodox, Masorti, and Reform communities, parents are generally more likely to include standard medical pain relief, either by doing the brit in a clinic or by combining traditional ritual with modern analgesia.

So, although the traditional interpreters I quoted earlier sometimes said pain was necessary for the commandment, many Jewish families who do it today DO use pain relief.

The Haredi are the ones who need this most, outreach and enforcement of pain relief should focus primarily on them.

I am not defending circumcision, I was explaining the rationale.

From my OP on, I have been cowardly that I oppose it for infants, I just think banning is not the best way to end it taking the full picture into account.

Your 'explanations' do sound an awful lot like defence though.

"The full picture" really doesn't justify anything. Mutilating a healthy newborn is wrong. There is no 'rationale' for it. None at all.

I think all this scriptural/historical stuff is totally and completely irrelevant. It matters not why it is done. All that matters is that the practice should end. This could be achieved by it becoming illegal.
This is 2026 we have moved on from irrational belief systems.

By the 'full picture', I do not mean WHY circumcision happens.

I mean that the 'full picture' of what would likely happen to kids at risk of circumcision if it were banned imo outweighs the benefit to them of banning it.

I'm not Jewish, this is totally incorrect. I was born Protestant and remain that. None of my male family members have been circumcised, fortunately.

I am interested in Judaism though, and religion generally.

You were not "born protestant".

Fair enough, I was wrong about that. I’m not the only one to feel you come across as defending the practice, while saying the words that you disagree; but the reasons for that are your own. Anyway, you’ve opened my eyes to the completely invalid reasons for the practice.

Well, if you prefer, I was christened, raised & remain that via choice of belief.

It's irrelevant to non Jews but to the people most likely to circumcise, it's not.

The historical and religious context is relevant because, it helps predict whether a ban would reduce harm or drive it underground and it determines whether families disengage from healthcare and safeguarding

practices tied to deep identity don’t disappear because they’re declared irrational. They change through internal reinterpretation, medicalisation, delayed timing, and social pressure.

Imo theological reinterpretation showing the original ceremony was far less drastic could be a powerful tool, certainly for people who are observant but more open to internal reinterpretation.

I know pps have argued you could just jail the parents if it takes place abroad, but comparisons to FGM show is complex...

We already criminalise taking girls abroad for FGM, yet prosecutions are extremely rare. That’s not because the law is weak, but because extraterritorial enforcement is incredibly difficult and often counterproductive. What actually reduced harm has been prevention, safeguarding, and community engagement — not mass arrests of parents after the fact.

Infant circumcision would be even harder to police overseas as it’s legal in many countries- Israel & US ofc, but also France, Germany, Canada, etc etc

I agree infant circumcision is terrible., but this is not how child protection law works-
Removing children from parents is one of the most traumatic interventions the state can make. It is used only where there is ongoing or serious risk — not as a punishment or deterrent.

“Even if it saved a few” is not a sufficient justification for policies that would traumatise thousands of children, overwhelm the care system, and drive families underground.

Blanket ban enforced by child removal would not just affect a handful of cases. It would mean siblings placed into care despite no ongoing risk, families disengaging entirely from health and social services and children suffering far greater trauma than the procedure itself.

It's genital mutilation, but because it's boys it's apparently ok. Should be treated exactly the same as fgm. Of course no one with any political sway will stick their head above the parapet and say so because they know they'll get accused of being anti-Semitic.

@Carla786Do you think if a parent chopped off a bit of a child's arm or leg they'd get to keep their DC? It shouldn't be different just because it's a bit of penis. It's still child mutilation and many parents if they knew they'd be arrested and charged with a criminal act and risk having their DC removed from them would not do it. Obviously it would need to be going forward and not imposed retrospectively.

I agree it's genital mutilation and deeply wrong.

But it is not medically equivalent to FGM. Removing bits of the clitoris or the whole clitoris is very different to removing the foreskin.

Amputating a limb or even removing part would cause lifelong functional disability & show evidence of severe psychological disturbance/sadism. That is why the law treats those acts as proof of continuing, extreme danger and removes children immediately.

Circumcision, by contrast is not associated with loss of basic bodily function & not predictive of future violence or incapacity to parent

None of that makes it good or right. But conflating every form of bodily harm into the same response leads to disproportionate state intervention that harms children far more than it protects them.

This program

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p04n1x7p

And this article

give some insight into how closed-off Ultra Orthodox UK Haredi Jews can be, and why changing their views on circumcision needs more than a ban and criminaoisation. One is from 2017 and one from 2008 but I imagine much still applies now.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jun/15/religion.communities#comments

@Carla786 I think you are right that a theological approach might be more effective. Used alongside a requirement for licencing practitioners with medical protocols for hygiene and pain relief.

Your description of how the practice has evolved to become in reality a significant operation was interesting. What struck me was the desire for it to be irreversible. That isnt a requirement from god but a desire from man based on insecurity. A fear that without what is essentially a tribal scar the religious leaders might lose some control.

If we have an extremist sect who will not follow the laws of our land and insist on mutilating children, we should infiltrate their communities and break them up. That might include taking children into care and imprisoning accountable adults.

We allow these "closed off" communities to exist. We can change our minds and shut them down.

This is what we have done when we suspect people are part of a cult. And these werent groups of people who have been isolated from birth. These were people we suspected had joined a cult as informed adults but had brought their children on board. We merely suspected them and wade straight in to protect the vulnurable.

But it can be completely banned from occurring in the UK without actually going after the parents.
Through criminalising (with custodial sentences) circumsisers who are not registered doctors/ medical professionals who are performing surgery on non consenting children, whilst simultaneously striking off any regustired professional performing surgery that is outside there scope of practice or not clinically indicated (which circumcision in health children is not) you can make the act of performing a circumcision illegal in the UK without going near the parents ( unless they physically do it themselves in which case that's their own fault), which is a start and an easy start.

Obviously what you do next depends on how this change is met by religious communities, but it can then later be added to the FGM bill as an amendment, to tackle families leaving the UK to do it.

It doesn't need to all be changed at once but it does need to be banned.

If the little boys around you are in danger of having their penis mutilated outside of clinical conditions and without pain relief, then you are a serious risk to children. For FGM, if you demonstrate that you understand that FGM is illegal, has no benefits and that it is wrong to perform this on children, you will get to keep your kids. If yoj keep.arguing that it is holy or whatever, you will lose them, as you should.

Found this online:

"On Mumsnet, discussions about hot-button political and cultural topics are frequent, popular and
lively. In every single one of these discussions, there will be user posts that could, by the
loosest definitions, be interpreted as ‘causing harm’:
● A Jewish, American or Muslim user may well be deeply offended by a post describing
the routine circumcision of baby boys as ‘child abuse’.
● On reading a post that questions their right to priority spaces on public transport, a
wheelchair user may well feel harmed by the implication that their legal rights are up for
debate.
● An assertion that men as a category are a threat to women and children, given that
almost all sexual and violent crime is committed by men, may well cause a male reader
upset and alarm.
● Senior Labour Party figures doubtless feel they have been harmed by assertions that
they are anti-Semitic.

"If the government or Parliament believes any or all of these statements should be illegal, they
should have the courage of their convictions and introduce legislation to that effect."

I think some readers from other sites talking about this thread should read what Mumsnet once said to the Govenment.