Close Menu
    Vereinigtes Königreich

    Beschneidung wird in neuen CPS-Leitlinien als potenziell schädliche Praxis eingestuft | Beschneidung


    Beschneidung wird in neuen CPS-Leitlinien als potenziell schädliche Praxis eingestuft | Beschneidung

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/mar/05/circumcision-classed-potentially-harmful-practice-new-cps-guidance

    Von 99thLuftballon

    View 28 Comments

    28 Kommentare

    1. Proper_War_3717 on

      Good, baring medical reasons it’s barbaric. You don’t even need a licence to do it. For poxy religious reasons.

    5. neo101b on

      It should be banned and only done for medical reasons, by a NHS doctor.
      If they want to mutilate it at 18 then its up to them.

    6. mockfu on

      And we don’t need to hear a religious point of view on it, we should ignore it if we do.

    7. AnHerstorian on

      If an extreme body modification artist who does tongue splitting and nipple removal procedures on consenting adults can get done for GBH, then there is no reason why medical practitioners who do this on children for purely aesthetic reasons should not suffer the same repercussions.

    8. Deepmidwinter2025 on

      Insane this is even tolerated. Female genital mutilation on religious grounds is immoral and rightly illegal.

      Why should it be different for males?

      Edit: amazed at the number of people who retort it’s not as bad as FGM, rather than just saying “assault is wrong. End of. We support this”. Ends up being “I suffer more than you”. I’ll remember the nuance next time when gender based violence is discussed and we compare physical versus emotional violence “hey it didn’t leave a bruise”

    9. UKSaint93 on

      Omg are we finally getting gender equality on genital mutilation? At fucking last

    10. JACOB1137 on

      its illogical , you’d think especially the religious folk would believe it stupid to mutilate your god given body right ? one can only assume that one of the prophets had phimosis and decided to lie about it !

    11. LJNodder on

      Should only be for phimosis and similar medical issues, never aesthetic or to appease religious doctrine

    12. Ninevehenian on

      Iceland and Denmark have attempted to put a minimum age on non-medical circumcision.

      This had the support of 85%+ of the voters. It didn’t happen and best explanation claimed that Israel + USA said no.

    13. epicpownage1234 on

      Not advocating for it but it has been proven to reduce transmission rates of some STIs. But that won’t stop me roasting my American friends for it.

      When they’re drafted they’ll have to show the IRGC their foreskin when captured and they’ll get mistaken for a Jew and slaughtered.

      Ever seen lotion on the desk to represent beating meat? That’s because Americans get psoriasis peen if they jack it without lotion, 100% friction, no tug.

      The reason Americans get ED treatment advertisements between every show they watch, snipped off their nerve endings and can’t feel a thing.

      Americans have 500 grit bellends from rubbing on their jeans all day, rumour has it they can light a match off it.

    14. Thrasy3 on

      “*Potentially* harmful” – I have to assume they are using classic British understatement here and what they mean is “there is no justifiable reason for us to ever risk doing this to a child as some kind of standard procedure”.

    16. ArmPuzzleheaded9666 on

      Getting something amputated for medical reasons is fine. Doing it because your sky wizard demands it is a bit surreal.

    17. Gay_Daddy_61 on

      So a child is mutilated due to the religious beliefs of his parents! Religion has too much power over governments!

    18. Known_Original_2046 on

      This is crazy to me, my first child was born in the US and I had to constantly remind them that we wanted to leave his foreskin alone. They tried to take him 3-4 times. My British husband was horrified. How is this still a practice??

    19. Blazured on

      Honestly the only justification for it is when it’s medically necessary, which is rare. There’s no other reason it should be legal.

    20. ALifeWellLift on

      Apart from medical reasons, its barbaric and should be left until the person is old enough to consent.

      Just imagine if it wasn’t already commonplace and someone suggested literally cutting off a piece of genitalia at birth. You would keep an eye on them at the very least.

    23. ExultentPisces on

      It should be treated the same way tattoos are. Adults only, with consent, at the individual’s risk.

      Frankly, it’s unbelievable that it’s still done to children at all.

    24. Embolisms on

      Will this make any difference given the influence of religion? The NHS can’t even say anything negtive about inbreeding 🤮

    26. Apprehensive_Road764 on

      A barbaric practice carried out by primitive religion that has no place in a modern society. I rank it exactly the same as FGM, its about control which is what religion is, money and control.

    27. concretepigeon on

      > In certain circumstances, such as the procedure being carried out by those falsely claiming to be suitably qualified practitioners or carried out in non-sterile conditions, it can cross the line into a harmful practice.

      It feels like they need to actually legislate so that carrying out circumcisions unless qualified is a criminal offence. And make parents equally liable if they engage the services of an unqualified people. The fact that at present anyone can operate as a circumciser.

      Given they evidently aren’t going to actually ban it, then this sort of wooly guidance helps absolutely no one. It’s so vague that almost everything will just be passed off as cultural differences.

    28. TheEndIsFingNigh on

      Its a barbaric religious procedure that mutilates a newborn child. It should only be used during a procedure where there are complications, for instance I have an IRL friend who had the procedure due to the foreskin being too tight and causing major discomfort.

    Leave A Reply