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.

Some religious communities insist that the mutilated penis must be sucked on by the circumcisor, in accordance with their scripture, to soothe the infant, while the friends and family whoop and holler in exaltation.
Any criticism would, of course, be most racist.

I think the first step, the compromise, is to allow it for religious reasons but ensure it is performed by a doctor with pain relief. Proper anaesthesia. Not just topical numbing cream. Parents would have to have the risk of general anaesthesia (or heavy sedation) explained to them, and sign consent forms accordingly, just as they would for any other surgery. It also needs to be classified as cosmetic surgery, because it has no medical basis.

Perhaps if we made parents aware of how painful (and potentially dangerous) it really is they would hesitate to consent, and might opt for the less damaging ‘original’ version, or decline it completely. Once this was acceptable then we could start to work towards completely banning it for cosmetic/religious reasons.

This is not an area for compromise. Mutilation is mutilation. You can't say OK you can do a bit of mutilation under particular conditions.

Of course the ramifications of making it illegal will be problematical, but that is no reason not to do it. Upholding basic principles often is problematical.

If the law will not protect these babies then who will?

Oh I've educated myself on all the pros and cons. And complications are greater as an adult.
And the fact that most men circumcised as infants are glad it was done then is important. Shouldn't we be listening to their voices? Its not like adult men are some marginalised group. The fact is that there are many circumcised men in positions of power and yet they are not the ones advocating to ban circumcision.

The irony is hard to miss. Within living memory, countries across Europe (like UK and Ireland) shut their doors to Jewish children fleeing the Nazis or happily gave them up to them to be murdered (most of the others). Now Europe suddenly wants to lecture Jews about the wellbeing of their own children, expressing outrage over so-called “mutilation.” Given Europe’s long history of exclusion, persecution and indifference toward Jews when it actually mattered, it’s hardly surprising that Jewish communities are deeply skeptical of this sudden concern. When anxiety about the wellbeing Jewish children only surfaces as a way to attack Jewish life and persecute jews and accuse them of child abuse (WTF?!) , it doesn’t come across as care — it comes across as hypocrisy.

Why beat around the bush? Please enlighten us as to which scripture and which passage? And which community? Please enlighten us if this is common practice or an extreme frigne and approximately how many cases?

Or are you perhaps slightly obsessed with the fringe practices of a certain group which you dislike for many reasons? And kinda got in there with the preemptive 'oh, ill be accused of racism if I say anything'

Concern about the mutilation of babies targets no one group or culture. It is fundamentally wrong whoever is doing it.

This is not a "sudden desire" to lecture Jews. This is a basic discussion about right and wrong. It has always been wrong.

Why do some people think men are glad it was done when they are young? What is the sense in that when it simply need not have been done at all?

YOU dont think it needs to be done. They obviously feel different, the apparent victims you have decided need saving.

And, yes, it targets certain groups and cultures. And those on their high horses about it generally are not from those groups.

Those who need saving are the babies. For these men ibis too late.
If it is specific groups that are guilty then they will inevitably be the groups who will not like a law to protect babies. That does not mean it should not exist.

Who speaks for the babies who died? Who speaks for the babies accidentally castrated?

Didn't the kindertrandport bring Jewish children to Britain?

Didn't the kindertrandport bring Jewish children to Britain?

It did indeed.

Yes. My aunt and my school headmistress had come on kindertransport.

Adults who had a way of getting out also came, though many who made it were interned until after the war under Churchill’s Collar The Lot policy.

Oh yes just checked 10000 mainly Jewish children brought here to escape the Nazis.

@TheignT Saba Saba is right though- the countries could have done much more plus Jewish families had to pay to send their children via kindertransport and it was organised initially by a Jewish person I think ( Nicholas Winter?) - it wasn’t a benevolent gesture towards children fleeing persecution by a thoughtful government in the way it could have been.

Yes but it was not quite so simplistic

Yes. We did bring the children to Britain..but their parents were left behind...

Nicholas Winton gets most of the credit : and he should get credit for what he did..however, we should also remember also the people who organised the transports and risked their lives.

Thank you for this post. These are really important points and I will address them later tonight.

For now, I stress that I do not want to minimise the suffering many OTD have experienced due to Chasidic groups. NY saying they are not cults, I didn't want to deny that they are extremely harmful often.

I think a comparison could be Catholic sects : a family friend got enmeshed in Opus Dei some time ago and reading up on it, it doesn't meet the definition of a cult stated above. But is extremely controlling and definitely cult-adjacent.

I think high-control religious group is more what the Haredi (Chasidic but also the non Hasidic are). Somewhat like the Amish : they share a lot of features, at least, partially, with cults, and can inflict a lot of distress. But they don't meet the legal threshold of cult. This shouldn't diminish the harm they cause : I was saying they weren't a cult to explain why that poster's call to use police to break the communities up wouldn't work.

Only some Haredi do that now: that was a premodern rite done due to mistaken understanding of germ theory. Most Jewish groups stopped doing it in the 20th century when infection was better understood.

We need to ensure no Haredi do it now.

Are you trying to imply it's done for sexually abusive reasons? There is no evidence that's the motive - it's just extremely badly-advised desire to follow scripture very literally by the Haredi (not all) who still do it.

It is in the Talmud but that was due to mistaken theory of infection. That poster seems to wish to imply dark motives.

Don't mutilate their children do they.

Doesn't fit with shutting the door. You know what the Talmud says about saving one life being equivalent to saving the whole world. Ten thousand not one. I used to work with a man who was at the liberation of Belsen. How many British men died to defeat the Nazis and save Jewish lives?

I think some apologies are due to the men and women who secured the defeat of the Nazis. Easy to criticise now, my husband was a babe in arms when his father died as a result of injuries in France. Many families suffered, deaths, injuries, mental trauma and it is just thrown back.

Ok, if someone is this deluded, why shouldn't they be in jail and their religion or maybe their interpretation of religion made illegal?

It's obviously dangerous and letting them continue is totally irresponsible.