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.

Wonder if that's why it's standard practise in Africa then?

MumNWLondon, not a single Muslim I know, here in the UK or abroad had their sons circumcised by an Imam, always doctors(even the ones that were done as a child over 30 years ago), this statement does surpise me a bit.

Really nice post hester, that shows real understanding.

Well said BootyMum I dont get all this crap either. If you dont want to comment, then don`t comment. Go elsewhere, some of us are interested, its condesending bollcks.

bollocks even

Riven the point was to explain the process my son went through to give background to my opinion, and that i feel to do this unnessasarily was barbaric - would you put your daughter through any of her ops if they weren't nessasary - of course you wouldnt - at least i hope not. I will never understand how someone could do that to their own child by choice. Its awful. truely awful. I feel so sorry for all those boys who are being let down by their parents and are allowed to be mutilated under the banner of 'faith rule'

gorionine - I only said this as my dad was a GP and had a lot of muslim patients and saw many botched circumcisions which had to be fixed on the NHS. Did not mean to offend.

On the basis of this thread then perhaps i would support a change in the law so that circumcision can only be performed by drs (fine with muslims) and possible some sort of accrediation scheme for rabbis?

Jewish circumcision can only be performed by mohelim. Some are rabbis and some are doctors, and some are neither. If takes several years to train to become one. All UK mohelim are regulated by the Initiation Society and they are all carefully continually monitored to make sure they are up to the job. Mohelim are much much more experienced at circumcisions than a doctor, even if the doctor is experienced at performing them.

www.initiationsociety.org.uk/

Circumcision does not actually give any/much benefit at all most reasons it is done for religious reasons (in the UK at least) but then there are countries where circumcision is done because it is seen as the norm and people find a circumcised penis more pleasing to the eye such as in America.

I think this is wrong and it's no different from this www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=4730&blogid=140 which is about reducing clitoral size in girls when they are seen as 'too big'.

I was not offended MumNWLondon, it just just surprised me as I have never heard of Imam actually perform circumcision before today. I think I will ask more arround, it might happen, just not to anyone I have met so far.

That's interesting MNWL. I guess that's why my nurse friend said that the botched jobs were from imam (rather than rabbi) as I had just assumed the same rules applied to both

Babydubs so sorry your son was traumatised by this event, but surely you can see from even the anecdotal evidence on here that this is why people choose to have it done at 8 days old?

Everyone who has had/seen one done says that they baby shows no signs of distress, despite no anaesthesia (MiL says DH cried more about his vaccinations!) and there is no bleeding, and no signs of pain on urination afterwards.

Gracie123, completely agree with that, what i cant get my head around is that anyone would do it all without medical need, just to be in with their mates, whcihc is essencially what is happening. i cant imaging cutting a part of my child off for no good reason, and because your relion/culture says you should is not a good enough reason to mutilate a child, earlobes serve no purpose, would you think it acceptable if i chopped one off my newborn? no way, id be hung drawn and quarterd for child abuse, i really see no difference, and im clearly not alone.

babydubs - it's not about 'fitting in' with a culture for people of faith. They really believe that God has commanded that they do it. They probably know that in this culture (UK) they will get a lot of stick for it because majority are not muslim/jewish, but they really believe it is required by God and if you believe in him that is much more important than what your friends think.

It's definitely not made easy. Like I said, we enquired about it when DS was born (mostly because DH had been and felt it was the right thing to do) but GP made it so difficult, and because we didn't have strong religious convictions about it we decided not to push for it.

It's certainly not an easy option or decision for people, so it's a little bit flippant to say that they are cutting off a piece of their child to fit in with their friends.

If they genuinely believe God told them to do it, and that he has what is best for them planned, they would be stupid not to do it.

All this research about it preventing HIV and STIs and cervical cancer in partners is probably just validating what they feel God knew all along. They've just been waiting for science to catch up IYSWIM

"All this research about it preventing HIV and STIs and cervical cancer in partners is probably just validating what they feel God knew all along. They've just been waiting for science to catch up IYSWIM "-what, that He created men with a design fault?

:-) no design fault diddl - the design was for monogomous lifelong relationships, in which the risks of HIV infection and cervical cancer are vastly reduced.

But, through grace, we are given a second chance not to stuff things up.

Just to throw a red hot spanner in the works.... if you believe God requires circumcision to accept the child isn't your choice between a small, possibly slightly painful operation and eternal damnation?

Which would you choose? And I don't mean slag off the idea of heaven, hell, acceptance by God etc, but if you believed this what would you actually do?

Actually HIV and cervical cancer is more a modern problem so no design fault as such

I don't have the information to hand, but in the last thread about this there was evidence linked to about the health benefits. It seemed that the benefits were only really significant in certain areas of the world where infection was rife, health was poor and medical care almost non existent.

If that evidence was all genuine then it doesn't mean anything in the UK.

In any case it's an excuse not the reason isn't it. If you do it for religious reasons then casting around for justification doesn't look good.

Would any of those who do it for religious reason stop doing it if it was discovered that statistically it increased the chances of transmitting HIV? It would still be god's law right?

My cousin's husband converted to Judaism to marry my cousin and chose to be circumcised aged 31, despite the fact we're Reform Jews so there was no compunction to do it, and even my uncle was a bit horrified by the idea of an adult man having to go through an operation and said that of course he didn't have to. Anyway, he chose to go ahead so is one of the few men who answer the question whether circumcision positively or negatively affects sexual feeling. In his case, he's said that sex is better.

Given his description of adult circumcision and it's aftermath and having been around for two babies' circumcisions, I know which I'd prefer for my son - so much less traumatic for a baby.

I've been at 2 circumcisions (both on 8 day old babies, not my cousin's husband!) and I can say that on the first occassion, the baby was crying due to the unfamiliar setting (as many newborns do quite a lot of the time at that age!) before the procedure. In the few seconds during it, his crying didn't change, which I would have expected if he'd suddenly experienced a lot of pain. On the second occassion, the baby didn't cry at all before or afterwards.

That's my experience, but on a personal note, as a non-practising Jew, some traditions matter to me. I can choose which ones make sense to me as (Reform) Judaism is a religion which requires its followers to question everything and only take on board those which fit squarely with them. I believe that a chain of tradition linking my child with thousands of generations of others matters, and I don't want to be the one to break it.

Takes all sorts though, and no-one has the right to tell anyone else what to do.

onagar absolutely they would still do it (and did for thousands of years!) it's just that when people come up with 'why would a good God ask you to do something like that?' I guess it's easier to say 'these are the emerging stats that seem to support him' than 'he knows better than you and medicine will eventually catch up' as other generations have had to say previously.

I don't think it changes their belief, just hopefully the way they are accepted and can relate to others.

Taking this off at a slight tangent then, betterstayanonymous, if there was some rule suggesting that if one committed adultery, then both guilty parties should be stoned to death, would you still subscribe to "no-one has the right to tell anyone else what to do" ?

I know you as a Reform Jew would not need to accept it, and as far as I know, it is not even part of Jewish tradition, but I include it as a hypothetical to test the idea that one should simply stand by and allow others to do what they do without even attempting to dissuade them if one considers the activity to be detrimental.

I didn't notconvincedaboutthis - I just commented that reading a book with whole phrases missed out was strange