Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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?

732 replies

Carla786 · 04/01/2026 00:49

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
MissyB1 · 04/01/2026 08:32

sittingonabeach · 04/01/2026 07:22

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

Doctors don’t really want to be involved with this anymore, they know they can get into trouble. Carrying out an unnecessary surgical procedure on a minor is unethical, and potentially career damaging. It wouldn’t happen on the NHS, and in private practice most surgeons would refuse, and private hospitals on the whole do not want to be involved with this - too much risk to their reputation if anything goes wrong. Our local private hospital (part of a big chain) is very risk averse.

InterestedDad37 · 04/01/2026 08:36

Imho it is just wrong, wrong, wrong!
If there's a medical necessity, then let it be done for that reason, but for anything else, I'd absolutely support a total ban - I don't give a flying fck what religions get offended by it. If someone wants to choose to have it done as an adult (why? 🤷) then fine. But to inflict it on non-consenting infants or children - just a big fat NO!

Blushingm · 04/01/2026 08:39

Danceparty55 · 04/01/2026 00:58

Circumcision is a very important part of religious Jews and Muslim’s faith. You may totally disagree with it. It’s not my faith. But to pretend that banning it isn’t a huge, huge thing is naive. We could and should restrict it to medical settings. My Muslim friends had their baby circumcised in a private hospital to ensure better health and safety. But banning completely seems so drastic to me. For the record none of my kids are circumcised so no vested interest in defending it.

FGM is a huge part of some people’s faith/culture but we ban that. What’s the difference?

If there was a faith that chopped off the little finger would you say ‘allow it in medical facilities’ or would you class it as disfiguring and ban it?

CloverPyramid · 04/01/2026 08:41

People always do this when things are banned. It’s not a 100% perfect solution so we shouldn’t do that. Despite there not being any perfect solution, and that banning it will make it much more difficult and thus not accessible for the majority of normal people without criminal connections.

Blushingm · 04/01/2026 08:42

AddSomeKindness · 04/01/2026 08:04

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.

Do you think all uncircumcised boys are dirty? That their penises are all infected? No - they just wash!

Nevermind17 · 04/01/2026 08:43

I’d include ear piercing of babies and young children. I don’t think anybody should have to right to change another person’s body without their consent, apart from for medical reasons.

GnomeDePlume · 04/01/2026 08:45

Licencing and community education would probably ultimately be effective.

I dont understand circumcision in a religious context, isnt it implying that god 'missed a bit', that the foreskin is like a bit of sprue on an airfix model?

I also dont understand the social reasons used for justifying circumcision. DH is circumcised, DS isnt. So far as I am aware, difference has never been a topic of conversation. Men dont spend time comparing their penises.

@AddSomeKindness given that you were paying the surgeon for the procedure he would say that wouldnt he.

Itsmetheflamingo · 04/01/2026 08:45

Blushingm · 04/01/2026 08:39

FGM is a huge part of some people’s faith/culture but we ban that. What’s the difference?

If there was a faith that chopped off the little finger would you say ‘allow it in medical facilities’ or would you class it as disfiguring and ban it?

The difference is time and societal attitude.

FGM has never been practised officially in the uk. It affects small numbers of women. It became a problem in the uk relatively recently and was easily banned. There was no public opposition to its banning.

Periperi2025 · 04/01/2026 08:45

Itsmetheflamingo · 04/01/2026 08:12

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.

Edited

It's "not practical" to ban rape, men will always find a way, it is frequently within relationships and behind closed doors, but it is still illegal and punished heavily (but not heavily enough) when we do catch and successfully prosecute for it. Likewise murder, we can't ban that, it will still continue to happen, and we will still continue to investigate, prosecute and punish those who perpetrate it.

Itsmetheflamingo · 04/01/2026 08:46

Periperi2025 · 04/01/2026 08:45

It's "not practical" to ban rape, men will always find a way, it is frequently within relationships and behind closed doors, but it is still illegal and punished heavily (but not heavily enough) when we do catch and successfully prosecute for it. Likewise murder, we can't ban that, it will still continue to happen, and we will still continue to investigate, prosecute and punish those who perpetrate it.

Yet all countries ban murder and none ban Male circumcision

Blushingm · 04/01/2026 08:50

Nevermind17 · 04/01/2026 08:43

I’d include ear piercing of babies and young children. I don’t think anybody should have to right to change another person’s body without their consent, apart from for medical reasons.

I agree - yet paediatricians in America offer this service, same as they offer circumcision. Just to make money. No other reason

AmpleMintBalonz · 04/01/2026 08:51

It wont be banned because it isnt just Muslims or non-white people who heavily endorse the practice. If this was like FGM where the practice clusters in non-white and Muslim communities, it would have been banned a long time ago. They wont impose any restrictions on some communities because they believe it would be discriminatory and unwelcoming to do so. The people in thoze communities might even threaten to leave and assume citizenship and residency elsewhere if we attempt anything like that.

HostaCentral · 04/01/2026 08:51

In a modern rational world no-one can possibly sanction that a God would request the mutilation of a baby, born perfectly intact, as that God intended.

Many things are written in scriptures that are not acceptable in a contemporary world. Let's just get on with it, and ban the practice.

JohnofWessex · 04/01/2026 08:51

I suggest that it would be perfectly possible to ban circumcision on an under 18 other than by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner on legitimate medical grounds.

It could also be made an offence to 'cause or permit' an under 18 year old normally resident in the UK to be circumcised other than as above

Meadowfinch · 04/01/2026 08:53

Nope.

A total ban except where medically necessary, and then only to be performed by a qualified GU surgeon in an operating theatre, after agreement by two doctors.

Criminal prosecution of both parents/ guardians and person carrying out circumcision, for child abuse or allowing the abuse of a child. No exceptions, no time limitations.

Automatic striking off of any medical professional breaking the law, and large fines. No time limitations.

It's child abuse, just the same as FGM.

Periperi2025 · 04/01/2026 08:56

Itsmetheflamingo · 04/01/2026 08:46

Yet all countries ban murder and none ban Male circumcision

Well yes, they ban murder, it still happens, they prosecute, murders get found guilty and sent to prison.

So no reason we can't ban circumcision, it will still happen, we will prosecute, they will be found guilty and hopefully sent to prison.

This is how the criminal justice system works, banning or criminalising something does not stop it happening, it sends a message that reduces offences, punishing it reduces repeat offenders, it eventually creates a cultural shift.

Needspaceforlego · 04/01/2026 09:00

Op I agree with you. It needs to be a cultural change not forced by law.

Let's not forget that Prince Harry also gave the game away that the Royals also have the boys done, who knows about the current generation of children but certainly as far as Charles, William and him.

Leaders within the Islamic and Jewish communities need to stand up against it. Or make it law that it can only be done in a medical setting.

Itsmetheflamingo · 04/01/2026 09:01

Periperi2025 · 04/01/2026 08:56

Well yes, they ban murder, it still happens, they prosecute, murders get found guilty and sent to prison.

So no reason we can't ban circumcision, it will still happen, we will prosecute, they will be found guilty and hopefully sent to prison.

This is how the criminal justice system works, banning or criminalising something does not stop it happening, it sends a message that reduces offences, punishing it reduces repeat offenders, it eventually creates a cultural shift.

Edited

So you’re ignoring the fact that no other country in the world- even the ones that want to- have managed to make it illegal? That doesn’t impact your contributions at all. Somehow the government should just be able to do what none other has been able to

AmpleMintBalonz · 04/01/2026 09:03

Itsmetheflamingo · 04/01/2026 09:01

So you’re ignoring the fact that no other country in the world- even the ones that want to- have managed to make it illegal? That doesn’t impact your contributions at all. Somehow the government should just be able to do what none other has been able to

They havent been able to because they are scared of upsetting communities who practice it as ordered to in their Holy Books. These commumities say such a ban would be prejudicial to people of their religion/ethnicity because they cannot truly belong to said group without it.

smallglassbottle · 04/01/2026 09:03

Children are not the property of their parents, they're individuals in their own right. Tail and ear docking on dogs is banned, so how is circumcision permissible? Children have a right to grow up with their bodies intact (barring medical issues) and can make the decision once they're an adult.

Sunshine1500 · 04/01/2026 09:06

Any faith that involves cutting a tiny baby or any child is wrong

NotAnotherPylon · 04/01/2026 09:09

I’m not sure employing a nuanced approach is always called for. There are some practices that are objectively wrong and, to me, this is one of them. I stand by my black and white thinking in this particular instance. Slicing bits off babies is wrong. There is, in my view, no ‘nuanced’ discussion to be had about it. I honestly couldn’t give a rat’s arse if my contribution to the debate is ‘immature’ as suggested by a poster upthread. People can do whatever they want to their own bodies, but babies’ bodies are not theirs to mutilate. All this hand wringing about potentially driving it underground or people getting it done elsewhere or leaving in their droves is theoretical. It may happen. It may not. It doesn’t make the introduction of that law wrong. Every new law is always going to cause issues for those who disagree with it. But you either obey it or you break it (or you find a loophole.) Tiptoeing around religious sensibilities when it comes to bodily autonomy should be a thing of the past, particularly in a secular country.

Also referring to ‘people on here’ as a homogenous whole is reductive and unhelpful. I arrived at my opinion by myself. In the real world. As I’m sure lots of others ‘on here’ did too.

VanillaImpulse · 04/01/2026 09:12

Who actually performs these operations as I sincerely hope the NHS is not being used for these mutilations?

Sadly I don’t see it being banned as cousin marriage was up for debate and they decided to keep that to not offend certain groups even though the level of disability from the resulting offspring is extremely high.

AmpleMintBalonz · 04/01/2026 09:12

AddSomeKindness · 04/01/2026 08:04

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.

If it cant retract, how will dirt get in? This is all solved by DAILY bathing. But then a lot of people argue that washing every single day properly in a bath or shower is unnecessary so of course they will have smelly genitals
.

Periperi2025 · 04/01/2026 09:12

Itsmetheflamingo · 04/01/2026 09:01

So you’re ignoring the fact that no other country in the world- even the ones that want to- have managed to make it illegal? That doesn’t impact your contributions at all. Somehow the government should just be able to do what none other has been able to

Someone has to be the first country, why not the UK? FGM is already banned so it would actually be pretty easy to adapt an already existing law to include male victims too.

Swipe left for the next trending thread