Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think that circumcism of under 18 year olds for non medical reason should be illegal

174 replies

Reallytired · 27/06/2010 21:51

Cutting off a baby's boys foreskin is cruel and unless there are strong medical reasons it should be outlawed. Babies feel pain and sometimes circumcisms can go wrong.

There should be limits to what people do in the name of religion. Child abuse should not be allowed just becauase it is not PC to upset ethnic minorities. If an adult choses to be circumised for religious reasons with no pain relief then that is their decision.

The use of corporal punishment is heavily restricted in the UK. Infact there are many people think there should be a total ban on smacking. It is illogical not to campaign for a ban on the circumicising of little boys.

OP posts:
Tee2072 · 28/06/2010 06:40

I am Jewish and I don't think you are being unreasonable. In fact, my son isn't circumcised.

But in case you're wondering why Jews circumcise.

gorionine · 28/06/2010 06:49

Ditto Mrs RettButler.

babybarrister · 28/06/2010 06:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

tyler80 · 28/06/2010 07:12

My mum asked my brother when he was about 11 if he wanted to be circumcised to 'look' like his dad. I believe his answer was f* off

BootyMum · 28/06/2010 09:21

Just because it has been 'done to death on previous occasions' doesn't mean we can't debate it now. If you are not interested go on another thread. Simples!
I may be one of the newer members of Mumsnet and am already a bit tired of the 'old hands' being withering about any topic which they feel has been overdone in previous years. Snore and back to you!
Actually I would be quite interested to hear from anyone who has had their child circumcised and why they did so.

porcamiseria · 28/06/2010 09:24

agree BUT this wont ever change , not in our generation I'm afraid. far to deeply culturallt engrained

it might align the jews and the muslims though!

littleducks · 28/06/2010 09:29

Its an interesting idea, perhaps you should start a campaign for it not to be provided on the nhs (still is in some areas) or for it to be banned.

It is a democratic country after all.

Tbh i dont think you would get any laws changed (or believe that they should be).

porcamiseria · 28/06/2010 09:30

really? I think the NHS (as per website) have a blanket ban on it for babies?

NarkyPuffin · 28/06/2010 09:37

Can we not use the term 'female circumcision' please. The word means literally to cut around and is appropriate for describing male circumcision- whether you agree with it or not. What is done to girls is genital mutilation.

Snobear4000 · 28/06/2010 09:41

Almost chucked a biscuit, but had to agree, YANBU

MumNWLondon · 28/06/2010 09:44

I am jewish, and both my sons had circumcisions at 8 days old. It probably hurt them for the brief second it was being done but they were fine right after. Healed with a day or so, much much quicker than it would do if it was done later (no stitches). Much less traumatic overall than the GA my older son needed for an ear operation when he was three.

It is not generally provided by the NHS, we paid for it to be done privately. I don't think the NHS should be paying for this at all, under any circumstances.

I don't see why anyone who wasn't religious would do this, but in the community where I live its pretty universal - other than the very non observant.

As for banning it, well you'd just drive it underground, at least now done by the experienced and regulated. I wouldn't want to break the law so I'd probably be forced to take a newborn abroad to have it done.

sarah293 · 28/06/2010 09:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

prism · 28/06/2010 09:57

You wouldn't be "forced to take a newborn abroad", MumNWLondon, as no-one is forcing you to do it at all. That really is the problem, isn't it? I don't deny that you sincerely believe you have to circumcise your son, but you don't- you really do have a choice, and if it was my foreskin I'd want to make the choice for myself.

NetworkGuy · 28/06/2010 09:59

Thanks Tee2072 for the link. I find the argument still too feeble (and appreciate you didn't go ahead).

I suppose some might argue that it shows women are perfect 'as they are' (on the grounds only the men needed to be circumcised to have an imperfection removed).

On the other hand, I suspect that (like many religions) it's just a male bias and underlying it is nothing about equality of the genders, but a 'men count and women support them' (or even worse) type of thinking.

Please don't get me wrong, not an attack on any single religion, but all which carry similar 'unequal' views and only have holy men. I also know there are some more liberal views in Judaism - hence the BBC Radio series "The Attractive Young Rabbi" (about a female rabbi).

trixie123 · 28/06/2010 10:04

As far as Jewish circumcision is concerned it is the "sign of the covenant" of "belonging" to the group of God's chosen people (am paraphrasing Genesis here, not necessarily saying they are, before it kicks off ). In the C1st BC Jewish women would commit suicide (by leaping from the walls of Jerusalem) with their sons in their arms when the invading Greeks prevented them from circumcising them. In other words, it is seen as a pretty crucial part of being Jewish and is completely different to the female procedure which is not a religious one at all and is to do with sexual purity and a women's subservient position. As others have said, it does not cause any more discomfort than babies initial jabs. I agree that "its my religion" should not be an excuse for just anything but I think calling it a form of child abuse is rather reactionary.

ninedragons · 28/06/2010 10:07

Could not agree more, OP.

SomeGuy · 28/06/2010 10:09

NarkyPuffin, there are forms of female circumcision that involve cutting around the clitoral hood or merely blood letting with a pin or needle - there are a hundred million women or more who have been subjected to something that is properly described as 'female circumcision', by reference to 'male circumcision'.

slhilly · 28/06/2010 10:33

I'm Jewish and we circumcised our son. My view is pretty clear: of course it's a bloody and primitive act -- my religion was born in the desert to a nomadic tribe thousands of years ago. The ensuing generations have softened its many of its harsher measures and created the most enormous and sophisticated intellectual edifice on top of the original concepts, but Judaism is still an ancient thing that does not fit very well with the modern world.

However. It is also a precious gift. Di goldene keyt, the "golden chain" connecting each generation to the previous generation through a shared history, extraordinary ideas, and a still-revolutionary way of thinking about the world is at the heart of my identity. Putting it on hold until my son is 18 would itself be to act at odds with the tradition, as would picking and choosing which bits to transmit.

My sincerest hope for my son is that it is the most bloody act of barbarism he ever has to endure. Many, many generations of his forebears were not lucky enough for that to be true.

I realise that all of this will be completely unsatisfactory to people with a strong anti-circumcision view. I say it to explain, not to justify. And like MumNWLondon, I feel a strong sense of obligation to get the bris done and would have gone abroad to make it happen if the law changed.

The tricky thing is, prism, that Jews have historically been forbidden by secular law from many aspects of religious practice: keeping kosher, keeping Shabbat, fasting on Yom Kippur, wearing a skull cap (men) or head covering (women), etc etc. So we've got that historical context playing in our heads when people talk about banning our religious practices, despite the context being modern concerns about child protection and human rights rather than state-sponsored persecution.

Butterbur · 28/06/2010 10:36

I completely agree with the OP.

There should be no non-medical procedures done on children. And by that, I mean under 18s. No piercings, no tattoos, and no circumcisions until the child reaches adulthood and can decide for themselves.

A decade or two ago an African woman (of I forget which nation) was prosecuted for cutting her child's face with her tribal marks. IIRC, it was successful. I fail to see why circumcision is considered to be different.

prism · 28/06/2010 10:51

Well, slhilly, I'm not aware that in this country anyone is banned from keeping kosher, keeping Shabbat, etc, and in my personal experience Jewish parents actually do pick and choose which bits to trasmit, or at least do pick and choose how many Jewish practices they follow "religiously" in practice. It just seems a shame that in the 21st century they can't choose to drop the circumcision thing, when there really is no benefit to it, and I'm sure you'd agree that if the practice were to be invented today it wouldn't be allowed.

Alouiseg · 28/06/2010 10:53

Its a dreadful practice when not medically necessary. Ds had it aged 10 for medical reasons and he was in excruciating pain afterwards.

The though of of non medically trained people carrying out this bizarre ritual on a baby boy is abhorrent and has no place in a civilised society.

It is child abuse. Plain and simple.

NarkyPuffin · 28/06/2010 10:57

The WHO uses the term Female Genital Mutilation SomeGuy, what you're describing is type IV.

MumNWLondon · 28/06/2010 11:02

Its not so straightforward to say - "you have a choice?" - well technically I might do, but as an observant jew, no I don't think there is a choice about something as fundamental to the religion as circumcision.

I am not surprised that there are people who feel as the OP do. But its not going to become illegal in this country.

re: the qualifications point - all jewish circumcisions are carried out by mohels not by rabbis. SOme mohels are doctors, some are rabbis, but the qualification process is long as a result mohels are far better qualified to do this procedure that doctors or surgeons.

re: GA - well it would be a local anyway with a teenager or adult, this is irrelevant.

re: bleeding: A babies would only bleed to death if they had undiagnosed haemophlia (or similar) and the mohel didn't act quickly. But such a child would be a significant risk say in a playground accident or otherwise if still undiagnosed.

NetworkGuy · 28/06/2010 11:08

Thanks slhilly for putting it into context, especially about how there'd be an easy reason to shout 'persecution' but you also seem to have a more 'open mind' on it being bloody and primitive.

Have to just echo prism's query on how it would go down if suggested as an act (with no prior use) 'today' ?

I find it sad to think that parents would go abroad for this to be carried out - it's not the same as the mutilation many young girls have been put through, but the similarity of not being willing to 'break with a tradition' is just as strong, it seems.

gorionine · 28/06/2010 11:08

"he though of of non medically trained people carrying out this bizarre ritual on a baby boy is abhorrent and has no place in a civilised society." Even for religious reason, usually circumcision is performed by someone who is medically trained.