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 needs to be carried out in a clinic/hospital by a qualified medical practitioner. End of.

Qualified medical practitioner shouldn't be carrying out procedures that aren't clinically indicated on patient unable to consent.

As an aside, I don't recognise the term most people are using. I've only ever known is as a bris, which happens on the eighth day.

My brother was born in a country the routinely circumcises baby boys. When SIL was pregnant, DB was adamant he would want the baby circumcising if it were a boy "because he should look like his father." Fortunately she only had girls.

I don't agree with circumcising babies, but I do think a ban would be exactly like an abortion ban - not stopping abortions, just making them far more dangerous. And of course further targeting a religious community that is already under violent attack.

This is not about targeting a religious community. It is about protecting children from mutilation. If it so happens that particular religious communities are the common perpetrators then that does not mean the law should not exist, any more than any other law which groups of people might also wish to ignore.

Exactly.

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

Well that is just tough. A principle of not mutilating children is fundamental - it matters not what any particular religious group might think. They can quote their scriptures till it is coming out of their ears, but they must still not be allowed to mutilate babies.

I would be the first to stand up for respect for people's individual beliefs, but if those beliefs express themselves in mutilating babies then they cannot be allowed to legally continue.

This isn't about Judaism, they aren't the only community that circumcise. I feel like making this all about Jewish traditions is so people can use anti-Semitism, persecuted Jews to continue something that has no place in the 21st century.

Am I mixing you up with someone else? I thought you said previously that you were looking to convert to Judaism but now you remain Christian by belief.

Apologies if I've confused you with someone else.

Of course the nonsense of that statement is that if one generation stopped butchering babies then all future generations of boys would still "look like their father"

No religious community is being targeted. The target is the prevention of knife attacks on babies which are being carried out on the grounds of their sex

It's medically closer than you realise. It causes significant desensitisation of the most sensitive area of the penis - partly through removal of tissue when most of the nerve endings are and partly changing the remaining surface so it's no longer a mucus membrane and loses sensitivity. I suppose the closest female equivalence would be removing the clitoris hood and leaving it exposed - that would end up desensitised too.

At the end of the day, hacking away at a child's genitals in the name of religion is fucked up in this day and age, regardless of gender or the faulty belief behind it.

Just shrugging it off by saying a total ban won't work is a very poor attitude. Everything has to start somewhere, and as a developed nation we should lead by example. It's not going to stop it overnight, but it will open up people's minds and make it a global issue. Or we could just keep on sweeping it under the carpet and ignoring it.

In defence of @Carla786 i think she is trying to look at what would realistically work when, as others have said, a ban would mean people go overseas for it or leave altogether.

It will take a change in interpretation tgat I think can only come from the rabbis, imans, elders, etc. Or perhaps when that generation die off, there might be a window open for discussion.

Sorry for the mistake, I was quite tired last night: I was Protestant by belief for most of my life (to be clear, I'm a uni student) but decided to convert to Masorti Judaism last year after thinking the idea over for a long time. I haven't yet made any formal steps though.

It's still true that I'm not Jewish by birth, nor do I agree with the 'barbaric tradition of harming baby boys' that that poster was accusing me of agreeing with.

Thank you, that's exactly what I mean.

I think more medical info on potential effects and focus on consent might cause change among Reform, Masorti maybe?, & Liberal. Some Orthodox maybe but that's much harder. Haredi - I honestly think as they're the strictest it's more practical to ensure their kids get a usual education and have support & options for leaving for a less strict group . Extremely strict communities (Amish another one) have more power over members the more access to the outside world they can restrict.

I agree that male circumcision can reduce sensitivity for some men, and that the foreskin contains nerve endings. That’s not in dispute.

But “medically closer than you realise” still doesn’t make it medically equivalent to FGM, and that distinction matters.The clitoris (including its hood) is the primary organ of female sexual pleasure.
The penis does not have a single equivalent structure. Sexual function and orgasm are distributed across the glans, shaft, pelvic nerves, prostate, etc.Removing the clitoris or damaging it directly affects orgasmic capacity in a way that circumcision generally does not.

Large populations of circumcised men (US, Israel, Muslim-majority countries) still report normal sexual function, orgasm, fertility, and desire. By contrast, FGM — even Type I (removal of clitoral hood)— is associated at population level with higher rates of pain, sexual dysfunction, trauma, childbirth complications and infection.

That doesn’t mean no circumcised men experience harm, but the overall functional impact is not comparable.

Still, there is zero reason to tolerate it in 21st century - and any faith unable to reflect and adjust isn't worthy of respect in a state where it isn't a state religion.

They report "normal" sexual function because it is their normal with a modified penis. They have no idea how it might have been if they had not been mutilated.
But, again, this is neither here nor there ... the basic principle is "Do not mutilate babies."

This would be a better approach but unfortunately the Stamford etc Haredi & probably some others would not be deterred by this, so probably back to the scenario of mass jailing parents.

Parents are the driving force → The obligation falls primarily on the father (with the mother fully supportive in these communities). If a mohel were unavailable or at risk of arrest, determined parents would simply find another—perhaps a mohel from abroad or even a trained community member stepping in. The demand wouldn't vanish; it would go further underground.
Mohels are revered in Haredi circles, a skilled mohel is seen as performing one of the holiest mitzvot—welcoming a Jewish boy into the covenant. He's often a respected communal figure (rabbi, teacher, or dedicated professional). Jailing him would be viewed as religious persecution.

In modern European debates (e.g., when Germany briefly questioned circumcision legality in 2012), community leaders openly stated they'd continue regardless of bans, and families prepared contingency plans.

In a UK context with mass arrests of mohels, Haredi neighbourhoods would almost certainly close ranks: anonymous tips wouldn't come from inside.

This is the most sensible and realistic solution. It’s surgery, and only qualified medical professionals should be performing surgery. Anyone else that does needs to be prosecuted. Tradition is not a good reason to allow something barbaric to continue.

So you mean ban any doctor who performs it for non medical reasons? Or allow it for religious reasons but ensure it is performed by a doctor with pain relief?

I think pp meant number 1.

I'll address this more tomorrow : but for now I'll say : there is much to criticise about Haredi.

But cult has a legal meaning. Haredi Jews are not confined, coerced, trafficked, or controlled by a single leader, and people can and do leave. Insularity is not the same thing as a cult, and the UK does not dismantle religious communities on that basis.

The charities Mavar and Footsteps work closely with ex Chadisim who are considered "off the derech". One of the people we work closely with is Dr Alexandra Stein who is pretty fundamental in research around cults. The reason we work so closely with her and recommend our members asosociate with her work and events is because so many people who are clasified as OTD do feel as if they have left a cult and have many commonalities with those who have been in cults that you would agree are cults.

The reason people argue against Chadisim being a cult is the lack of one clear leader. However, the dependency on a Rabbi to "interpret" the scripture and apply it to every day life, as well as make determinations about what is right, wrong, good or bad, appoints individual Rabbis and other community elders as these leaders. The fact that they might not all agree reinforces their singular control over their specific congregation. You need to speak to your Rabbi for them to make a subjective decision on how you should proceed based on how they were taught to interpret the scripture.

The answer we settle for is that Chasidic communities are definitely a cult for at least some of the people in it. Particularly those who want out.

They are confined. They are confined to areas, schools and communuties which permit one to live in accordance with the customs and values of ultra orthodox Judaism. For example, today, many Chassidic communities need an eruv, schools within walking distance and the ability to shop kosher without needing to go too far from home. You cannot just live anywhere in the UK in 2026 and feasibly live halachically as you are dependent on the community. You are even dependent on a Gentile community who are understanding and permissive and help you adhere to your way of life in a modern world. You need a "Shabbos goy" in various forms.

Coercion is rife. The threat of losing your family and friends as well as your closeness to God unless you submit to the teachings is coercion.

Trafficking also occurs. Young men who are barely educated are shipped to join their equally young wives across the country or globe. Young couples are sent away for the young man to "study". None of this is with informed consent. It is coercion.

The people who leave are often isolated and ostracised with poor employment or academic prospects, which is why our charity exists. You cannot leave and still receive recongition and belonging from the community. You cannot leave a Chassidic community and send your children to a Chasidic school. You can fully denounce the existence of God, live where you want and send your child to a Jewish school. Judaism is not a cult.

Chasidim arent raised Jewish with equal access to education and information and then, as adults, choose to become Chasidic. In fact, people who have taken that journey (Baal Teshuva) are seen as inferior by many Chasidim. The ideal is that you were born into it and know no differently.

I see that you want to convert. For the people who have experienced the perils of Chassidic communities, it can be very frustrating when other Jewish people are oblivious or minimise the reality of ultra-orthodox communities for those who want to leave them.

A law change will give open minded mums the confidence to say no to old fashioned pushy relatives wedded to "tradition". The younger jewish & muslim mums i know are not dead set on it at all.

A very odd and misleading mistake to say you were Christened a protestant and remain that by choice and belief when you are planning to convert. Sorry can't take anything seriously after that mistake.

I believe the majority of american men are circumcised. It was certainly offered to me for my son when he was born. But it's declining (slowly). I put the high number down to a squeamishness about masturbation (cloaked as concerns about hygiene) which just continued because 'you want him to look like his dad'.
The scottish actor Alan Cumming has been prominent in an anti circumcision campaign in the US. I hope he's having some success.