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.

But that is also because the upper classes marry their kin. Not because they dont want to upset Muslims who also marry kin in some communities.

I.would agree but I look at fgm and parents still take their daughters abroad to have ot done and very few have ever been prosecuted even though its illegal.
What we need is a two prong attack that involves talking to the communities and actual prosecutions and serious jail terms with all children removed from the family to protect them from the same fate.
Unfortunately much like the non stunned slaughter of animals which is illegal there will always be a religious exemption (which btw is don't agree with).
Until we have a government thats willing to stand up to all religions and say these are our laws no ifs buts or maybe's and if they are incompatible with your religion tough move to another country or obay our secular laws and punish those who break them nothing will change

There is no circumstance beyond medical need where I would agree with circumcision, however OP is correct that a ban would be a tricky issue on several fronts.

In all things the law must strike a balance between personal freedoms and interference in private lives. This could be seen as an overreach into people's private affairs which has little public interest.

Then as OP has identified, there is the possibility that it's seen as an attack on religious communities.

There are quite a lot of fairly medically qualified people in the world who are invested in arguing that elective circumcisions have medical benefits. So even if there was a ban, how easy or hard would it be to prosecute elective procedures which were done under the guise of medical interest?

Are there any large-scale medical studies which prove circumcision is harmful? If so then a ban may be easier, but I don't even know if it would get past a public referendum in all honesty. So I can very much understand why govts haven't tried to tackle it before.

FGM is banned across all of Europe, and it hasn’t helped them Ban MGM.

Finland got as far as their upper chamber where it was thrown out.

its nice to pretend its simplistic but that doesn't reflect reality.

That assumes that there are a lot of parents still taking their children abroad for FGM rather than the law helping to reduce the practice hence very few people being caught doing it. If everyone who have or might circumcise their sons was put through safeguarding measures like they are for FGM, maybe the practice would reduce too.

If people want to emigrate just to do it, and other countries permit the practice, maybe we should let them go there.

We need to stop appeasing religious communities who endorse it. It is as simple as that. But many have high status and political power.

Which religious communities have high status and power? Would you care to elaborate?

It wasn’t generally seen on known about - but there is so much more migration it became known about. People moved to the UK and brought practices with them so it has been practiced but behind closed doors and in smaller communities. As those communities grew it became known about by the main stream and therefore discussed and scrutinised

Nobody thinks it's simplistic, just that we should try. You just seemed massively invested in keeping this barbaric religiously sanctioned child abuse going.

It should be treated the same as any other body modification unless there is an immediate medical need). If people want to do it for religious / cultural reasons it can be done once they are over 18 with full informed consent.

I’m invested in a mature conversation. Banning everything without thought for the practicalities is simplistic and doesn’t acknowledge the implications of blindly legislating against things without mature and informed planning.

The ones that managed to "push" to ensure the ban didnt go through in Finland. Research for yourself why it didnt go through.

You do realise that the only reason a baby doesn't need sedation is because they cant fight back and stop the "procedure" or move away from the person wielding the scalpel? It still hurts just as much and comes with all the same risks, the only difference is that a baby wont remember the pain when they grow up

It is very practical. You ban male circumcision without medical indication.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a8197a940f0b62305b8fc87/FGM_Flowchart.pdf

You use this as a template to ID men and boys who have already had it and then safeguard the boys around them.

What makes you think a baby finds it less painful than a teenager? Because they can't speak?

It's a disgusting practice and should be banned. We shouldn't be chopping bits off babies because some men wrote it down in a fictional book thousands of years ago.

Also they didnt even realise that neonates experience pain in the same way that older people do until relatively recently.

Nearly 40% of males worldwide are circumcised. The vast majority of them are perfectly happy with their lot since unlike fgm its performed for different reasons and has very few downsides and even some health benefits.
Circumcising a baby is a much easier operation than an adult. Therefore parents do need to make that call with the child's best interest as for any other decision. A boy could just as easily grow up and regret not having been circumcised as a baby as one who might regret it
The fact that people on mumsnet think they know best than nearly half the world's male population is really quite mind boggling. I suppose its because it's not a British thing to do. You're not better than those billions (literally) of parents who have decided to circumcise their sons even if they are mostly African, Muslim or Jewish

I've thought through the practicalities

A) imprison anyone carry out a surgical procedure on a minor without a suitable medical registration
B) strike off any health professional/ doctor carrying out a surgical procedure that is not clinically indicated
C) adapt existing FGM laws to include mutilation of male bodies (not a huge step)
D) the difficult bit - deal with people like you who will resist it based on odd, ancient religious doctrine.

Nothing immature about having a strong opinion on the mutilation of non consenting babies genitals.

Linking to a template to safeguard isn’t related to the legal process of banning though is it? You’ve posted it as though you have the solution and it’s little more than a side note.

I presume you mean the Jews but dont want to say it in case it sounds like the antisemitic trope that it is.

If you trafficked your daughter for FGM then yes, you would be arrested. So there is no difference.

If foreskin didnt have a purpose, we would have evolved without it. At 8 days old, or even 8 years old, very few males will have foreskin so problematic that it needs to be removed.

Why are you supporting men being mutilated without consent? Do you think little boys matter less? Do you revel in the idea off such a sensitive and intimate part of a male being cut and removed from him and nobody really knows his pain? Is it like a gender war revenge thing?

It needs to be banned in this country. If parents then choose to mutilate their babies abroad then that’s their choice and on their conscience. There should be zero tolerance for it in the UK.

That is how you identify children at risk of a prohibitied practice and safeguard them.

Irrelevant. Why are babies born with foreskins if not biologically and evolutionary required?? Just because that many baby boys have been mutilated doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. It just highlights how horrific and widespread the issue is.

Also, as an aside, it looks really odd, to those of us who don't see it as normal.