Because I believe in slippery slopes, would banning this act give more credibility to those who are trying to ban male circumcision?
Yes, but only because it sets a precedent, not for any rational reason. I've read all the arguments and studies about male circumcision. The two procedures are not comparable (although I'm sure you can find people who will try to do make the comparison.) Basically, with male circumcision it comes down to a small complication rate vs hygiene and aesthetic and possible religious issues. Looking at the studies I'm ok with people arguing for not doing it, but the complication rate is nowhere high enough to mandate over the parents choice. Whereas with the female genital mutilation, the whole point is to damage the sensation of the area. As one circumcised researcher put it, "the thing is already as sensitive as Liza Manelli on a bad day".
The male to female comparison is not valid in this instance.