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.

From what I have read, some people basically make it known that they or other people around them endorse the practice despite (now) hearing the risks. They would be seen as high risk.

Others are relieved that their children (or they) will be legally protected from it happening to other females around them. They would be seen as low risk..

Oh I see.

Btw I'm constructing a new religion with some friends.
We shall deign it necessary to chop off the babies little toe age two weeks old. It's our religion and we are very strict on.this.

@AmpleMintBalonz I just don't see how that would work.

In the UK especially we have been shown time and time again that we are terrified of upsetting communities and being disrespectful to their traditions.
It's also noted that many females from some religions are living according to different rules and rights than those afforded to their white relgion free peers.

So we don't do it on light stuff how can we do it on issues that are hugely personal and intimate to the victim and family ?
Also intervention would pitt a child against its parents ?? Ie extremely emotionally hard to to do.

Maybe the best route is to establish a clear secular society where religion is hugely surpressed ?

We can't control what other countries allow or what people do if they move to another country.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't have our own higher standards that do not allow the mutilation of babies in our country.

True. But it does indicate that change is possible when ethics change.

And the point of ritual is that it is… ritual. Ritual can be, and often is, metaphorical or token.

It seems very fundamentalist to me to insist that flesh must literally be cut off.

Scandinavian Jews, in the main, seem to manage without actual flesh removal.

My cousins are Jewish. Their Mum escaped on Kindertransport and was brought up by Jewish relatives here. They maintain Jewish religious and cultural observance but have not circumcised their sons.

I suspect change would happen if the ritual applied to consenting adults rather than babies.

I think it has worked for FGM in the sense that it is less endorsed by communities subject to intevention schemes across the globe. Rates are reducing but migration muddies those statistics.

What it would mean is that families where there are circumcised men and boys would be subject to the extra measures that families where FGM have occurred currently face when they are identified as such. There would be a greater number than women with FGM.

Fear of upsetting a cultural minority should not stop the UK outlawing child mutilation.
Let them be upset.
The UK must stand firm on basic principles.

The practicality of enforcing bans hasn't stopped them in other situations.

A couple of my female colleagues were pleased they had given birth to girls as they were dreading having to have their baby boys mutilated circumcised.

But they don't have to have .

The same is done for teenage girls from a certain culture. Their parents can be arrested for it. I have seen some of these girls return from such a “holiday” and the police have been called. No one should be slicing anyone up.

The suggestion that they have no agency here is also worrying.

Surely if we allow cutting off bits of children's bodies because it is the strongly held belief of religious and cultural minorities, we would need to legalise FGM? We would need to reverse the ban on FGM in the UK as banning it is an infringement of the rights of those groups who practice it? Who is in favour of that?

This was a few years back so maybe things have changed some areas of Judaism.
The practice was common in the white British upper classes until fairly recently. Tongue tie and circumcisions done as a package.

As I said, much more difficult operation. I know many circumcised men who were circumcised as babies and not one has ever said they wished their parents had not done it to them.
You're all outraged about something that doesnt affect you and is not coming from or being demanded by the community of circumcised men. Of course there are a tiny number but compared to the billions(!) who are circumcised totally marginal.

No, because fgm is totally different to male circumcision in purpose and impact.

whats the purpose of circumcision?

It beggars belief that people who believe in the existence of an infallible god should at the same time believe that he/she makes such major mistakes in the construction of babies that we need to set about correcting these - what utter nonsense it all is. Nonsense that is allowed in UK law - it is time we got on with outlawing this.

You're all outraged about something that doesnt affect you and is not coming from or being demanded by the community of circumcised men.

So you are saying we should ignore child abuse unless it affects us ?

I don't feel I will apologise for that.

How is it more difficult when older? Are you a person who has carried out both?

The moment you surrender your agency to a sky fairy, you have blown your critical thinking.

If people who want to harm their children choose to emigrate because they can’t legally do it here then 👋👋👋

But again - they don’t know what life would be like if they hadn’t been circumcised so how would they know to regret it or not?

Trouble with outlawing is that initially at least you’ll get (even more) backstreet dangerous cicumcisions being done.
That said, I strongly disagree with the practice. Let’s not forget too that it’s secular thing done in places like the US. When i gave birth there the first question I was asked by the paediatrician was ‘do you want your son circumcised?’. That was 30 years ago. I don’t expect things have much changed.