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

[Reallytired]

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.

should read "on" this gem

every thread that in any way touches on religion gets posts like that IME

Cannot deny that atrocities ahve been carried out in the name of religion though. I wouldn't actually count circumcision among them but they definitely have happened

YANBU in my opinion.

My 7mo DS has just had an operation that is to me, cosmetic, but without which he would have been bullied and most likely not accepted by society, and it was the hardest, most gut wrenching thing I've ever had to do. I wish I could have taken the pain for him. I wish we lived in a less image concious society, but we don't, so c'est la vie. Having gone through these last few weeks, the worst of my life, I do not understand how anyone could make their child have an unnecessary (I'm taking this as non-medical, religion etc aside) procedure.

"The baby doesn't get a choice about whether he wants to be an observant Jew or not though, does he? Maybe actually he's not very religiously inclined, maybe he quite likes his body the way it is.

My all means people can choose to be as religiously observant as they want - an 8 day old baby doesn't get a choice."

Perhaps, but its not just circumcision - eg I am female (hence don't have a physical reminder) and was brought up as religious jew, and there is a very low drop out rate.

We could get into a whole different discussion about whether parents can bring their child up in a religion or not.

We were discussing this when we did DS's circumcision and my DH said he was very pleased that his parents had circumcised him as a baby otherwise he'd have the onus of having it done on himself as an adult.

My parents brought me up in a religion - luckily I was able to reach adulthood with my body intact and able to decide what I wanted for myself.

"My parents brought me up in a religion - luckily I was able to reach adulthood with my body intact and able to decide what I wanted for myself....."

yes it is just the MIND (not the body) that some religions really mess up

agreed

The comparison to ear piercing is not really valid. Piercing is more or less reversible, circumcision isn't. I say more or less because I accept there may be a barely visible hole left for some.

Equally, there are many grown men and women who would be able to sit and have their ears pierced with in exactly the same manner as a young child. Try and find a man who'll have a circumcision under the same conditions as a baby.

Just because something is a religious observance, doesn't automatically make it moral or right.

I was starting to get the impression with this thread that it is actually bigotry masked by concern over child abuse

but I didn't know if it was me having drunk too much coffee and being OTT. Don't really know, am giving it the benefit of the doubt.

Agree that Magdalena is correct in all she has said here.

Well, Magdelena, if anyone sounds indignant it's you. I got my DD's ears pierced when she was 10- because she wanted them pierced and we had discussed it- not really an arrestable offence. I would like to think that is the way things are done in 21st century Britain, but it plainly isn't. Doing things "because that's what's always been done" does not have a good track record, especially in the medical context.

I haven't read every single post, but I think it's probably too much coffee for most of the posts.

I think I must have defo had too much coffee and I wish I knew why I cnnot finally GIVE THAT STUFF up. Does me no good.

shall therefore retire my over-caffeined self from the thread.

FortunateHamster - there was a thread not too long ago about a decision for cosmetic reasons to 'look like his dad'.

Magdelena - fine for the parents to have a wish, but what if the son turned his back on the religion he was brought up with (as I did, around 11 or 12) ?

I was lucky, my Mum was R.C. (having converted from Methodist to marry an R.C. chap from Eire) but after being widowed twice, despite her fairly strong views, she was willing to listen to my argument that for all the words of wisdom from a religious leader (in our case, a priest) these were essentially mens' rules for others to follow, based on some ancient books where anyone could have written anything as a belief/command and 'followers' were expected to accept it!

I viewed the whole thing as man-made and would not accept it. I constantly question why others do feel a need to 'belong' to a religion - it's almost like 'peer groups' - well I for one am happy not to feel 'left out' or that I 'must conform', thanks.

I accept others may hold religious views, but children have no option in most households, and when it comes to some irreversible 'ceremony' it's hard lines later on if that boy felt religion meant nothing to him.

Sure, the 'drop out' rate might be near to nil, but in part that comes from loyalty, and how much pain it might give the parents, or just not having the backbone to point out the argument for religion is flawed.

Of course, in the meantime, if one then goes on to have children, their grandparents would be upset if religious following was not passed on, and so it goes on...

"We were discussing this when we did DS's circumcision and my DH said he was very pleased that his parents had circumcised him as a baby otherwise he'd have the onus of having it done on himself as an adult."

I don´t get that at all tbh.
If his religion means enough-why would it be an onerous decision to make?

Kind of reads to me as if he wouldn´t have it done as an adult.

If that´s the case, why inflict it on a baby?

What he meant was that he was glad it was done as a baby, as he didn't remember it and he had always been that way, it would be more traumatic as an adult.

I know a family where the dad didn't have it done as a baby even though he was jewish but he was very keen to circumcise his son even though he didn't want to have himself done.

Circumcision is mutilation, plain and simple. We don't remove any other body part from a baby, and the foreskin is important for the enjoyment of sex. It's been proven that circumcision lessens the feeling of sexual pleasure.

Not to mention I agree with the poster on the previous page that forcing one's religion upon a child should not be allowed. All children should be allowed to choose their religion once they're old enough to understand their choices.

I agree that if it means that much then they should have it done as an adult.

Lovesdogsandcats: none of us is spared pain in this life. Merely by bearing a child, you are ensuring they will suffer. This pain may be "needless" in that the child did not have a medical reason to suffer it, but it was also pretty mild and shortlived.

NetworkGuy and others talking about the putative immorality of foisting religion on children. We cannot avoid imbuing our children with a value system. I will still influence my children's idea of right and wrong whether or not I bring them up within a religion.

Just to add to the pot - in cultures where male circumcision is normal there are vastly reduced incidences of cervical cancer, transmission of the HPV virus is aided by the presence of the foreskin. Circumcision has also been found to vastly reduce transmission of the HIV virus. I'm not saying it is right to circumcise, and I'm aware it's an emotive issue but we are talking about a little flap of skin and this can in no way be compared to so-called female 'circumcision' which imparts no health benefits whatsoever.

These conversations always revolve around the Jewish faith but circumcision is also practiced in Islam, thus a fairly large proportion of the world is circumcised and they do not see it as mutilation. The areas where circumcision is not commonly practiced, e.g. South America and Africa, also have the highest rates of cervical cancer.

In rare situations the old-wives tales do turn out to carry some real-world weight and it would seem that with circumcision, this has been the case. That is not to say that cutting of a part of the body is not a drastic action but, amongst the circumcised men I know it has never been an issue either psycologically or physically.

I'm guessing men who have been circumcised need to use a bucket load of KY or similar for their own personal stimulation because they have no foreskin. If they had a foreskin just think of the savings on KY or hand lotions...

Everyone knows what a hot potato this is, and in RL I think people keep quiet. However MB allows people to go on, maybe louder than they would ordinarily. so kudos to NWLondon for hanging on in there

I so also tend to agree that there are bigger fish to fry. There are things that concern me a million times more than this.

I maybe wrongly see circumcism in a similar field to tattoo/ear piercing, and think that maybe in time the age will be moved older. But as said earlier, not in our lifetime...

I love DH's foreskin and would miss it if it wasn't there (I think he would too)