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.

Well, human sacrifice was required.

AFAIK, in the US most boys are routinely circumcised shortly after birth, in hospital. Seeing that most of them will be Christian, why is it done there?

And hardly any of those 40% consented to it, because they were tiny little defenceless babies. That's ok with you is it?

@Enrichetta money probably

I don't agree with it either. But as you say, it will continue even if illegal, in a less safe way. Like abortion, despite being illegal, many were still done, but by backstreet practitioners, with people then scared to seek help afterwards for fear of prosecution. Not comparing circumcision to abortion as a procedure, but just linking the risks of making a procedure illegal

It should however be made compulsory that it's done by a suitably experienced Dr, in a private clinic or hospital which is CQC inspected and approved.

This is less so the case now. But yes, 20
years ago it would’ve been routine. Attitudes are shifting.

I’m sorry but if you pretend it’s the same as FGM you have already lost the ability to have a sensible conversation.

1. FGM causes long term medical issues in all cases. It often causes incontinence, loss of all sexual feeling and long term pain. Male circumcision, when done by a medical professional rarely has any long term negative consequences.
2. FGM is a cultural practise that can be taught against. Male circumcision is directly prescribed by two of the world’s major religions. You will cause huge unrest, disobedience and frankly you wouldn’t win a democratic vote on this in parliament in the first place.

You can disagree with both. But to put them on the same footing is simply not fact based.

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/proposal-to-ban-circumcision-of-boys-scrapped-from-finland-bill-648723

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.timesofisrael.com/proposal-to-ban-male-circumcision-scrapped-from-finland-bill/amp/

"Lawmakers in Finland have removed language against nonmedical circumcision of boys from a bill on female genital mutilation following a push by Jews in the country and Europe."

https://www.algemeiner.com/2020/11/09/finnish-jews-relieved-after-legislation-targeting-female-mutilation-exempts-circumcision-of-males/

Finnish Jews Relieved After Legislation Targeting Female Mutilation Exempts Circumcision of Males
^^
In a statement on Monday, the head of Finland’s small Jewish community of under 2,000 expressed relief at the news that male circumcision would remain legal, warmly thanking Jewish leaders in the United Kingdom for providing assistance with lobbying and representation to the Finnish government.
“We thank Milah UK and the Board of Deputies of British Jews for their support during this anxious episode for the Finnish Jewish community,” Yaron Nadbornik — president of the Central Council of Finnish Jewish Communities — said. “The support of international partners has helped ensure a way forward for us to work towards securing our religious freedom for now.”

Why would it be antisemetic to say if it was just Jewish people? The fact is that it was also Muslims and some other religious/cultural group.

I’m afraid I think the rights if the children need to supersede the preferences of the adults. It should be illegal for non-medical reasons in children. Religious traditions are capable of adapting and reforming to conform with more up-to-date knowledge. This tradition is long overdue for reform.

It's already obviously not safe if babies are dying from it. So that's a stupid reason not to ban it.

That baby who died, maybe his parents would have chosen not to do it if it was banned and maybe he would still be alive.

Circumcision isnt in the Quran.

You are posting this with an air of powerful influential Jews interfering.

the other side is Jews take their religion so seriously that they know they cannnot practice in a country that outlaws MGM.

they would have to flee, which as you know, the Jews have quite a history of being forced to do.

Even though they wont formally remember it, the pain will have an impact - creating cortisol in the brain which causes negative long term neural changes.

Anaesthetic should be compulsory.

How can they be perfectly happy if they’ve never known any different?

"I cant cut my babys cock so I wont stay here"

Okay, see ya.

😂😂😂 And yet since the dawn of our species, people have managed to live, breed and thrive without mutilating their male infants' penises 🤷
(edited for typo)

That’s like saying people die from breast implants. People do when they have it done in dodgey overseas clinics. But it is a safe procedure when done in UK by licensed doctors. I would never get cosmetic surgery done. I have serious issues with it. I don’t think banning it is the answer.

What makes you think it’s an easier op? If anything it’s more delicate.

It’s probably worse doing it when they’re older, it’s barbarism at its finest to perform this procedure on a young boy unless for medical reasons.
it should have been outlawed in Europe years ago,
It not much better than performing FGM.

I dont know why people fall for this idea that unless we permit abohorrent and archaic practices, people will feel unwelcome and leave and that speaks badly of us as a society.

We arent even consistent with that belief though. We dont seem to care what some groups think and then care massively about others.

You are away that there isn’t just 1 type of FGM?

Religious practices aren’t any less wrong that cultural practices.

Many men in the US are circumcised because it is the norm not because if a region - it’s actually often routinely offered in hospital after giving birth.

Just because a lot of people do it for cultural or religious reasons doesn't make it right. It's sheer ignorance, don't excuse it. Ask most men if they want to have their penises mutilated - most would say no. 🤷

I think objectively, “the people of mumsnet” DO know better. In that they know there is no benefit of circumcision* and it presents unnecessary risk for a baby who can’t consent.

what the “people of mumsnet” can’t appreciate take is the influence of societal norms, culture and upbringing on those 40% of the world, because they are not exposed to it.

It’s all rather colonial. The savages in Africa cutting their babies up. Better sort them out by changing the law to criminalise them.

*there is evidence, or at least there was 10 years ago if it hasn’t been superseded, that circumcision offered a small benefit in protecting against HIV. It has always been acknowledged that this is likely only beneficial in communities where HIv is rife and condoms are not used.

The difference is that it would be YOUR choice to have the implants - but these boys have it done to them. Your reasoning doesn’t work

This argument collapses the moment you remove cultural defensiveness and look at the ethics.

How common circumcision is does not matter. Popularity does not make an irreversible bodily alteration ethical, especially when it is done to someone who cannot consent.

The claim that it has “very few downsides” is simply untrue. It removes healthy functional tissue, permanently alters the body, and sometimes causes complications. The fact that many men are fine with it does not cancel out the fact that some are not and were never given a choice.

Saying it is easier on a baby is not a justification. It is the core problem. Babies cannot refuse.

The “he might regret not being circumcised” argument is logically broken. If he grows up and wants it, he can choose it. If you do it to him as a baby and he does not want it, the harm is irreversible.

This is not about British snobbery or looking down on other cultures. It is about a child’s right to bodily integrity. Culture does not override consent.