LOL, I stand corrected. I'm just concerned with state governments using "health concerns" to strip people of liberties. Smoking bans come to mind, along with countless other "health" related regulation.
No problem with that in general, but would you have a problem with forcing infants to smoke?
Some people just freak out at the thought of this procedure. I have witnessed several (of my own sons and grandsons) and the entire operation takes a few seconds. There is NO WAY a person could "get off" sexually by doing this, not to mention that there is a crowd of people present during the ceremony.
I'm not saying that this particular instance is one that necessarily requires regulation. I mean, granted if it were up to me genital mutilation would just be banned outright, but since the mutilation of infant boys is tolerated due to barbaric custom, I dunno if there's any much reason to worry about the methods beyond that. Now, if there was a legitimate health risk, such as alleged here, then maybe. If they do establish that the circumcision led to the baby's death, then I wouldn't have a problem if the state required that they find a less revolting method of carrying out their barbarism than sucking the boy's penis.
And please bear in mind that this is not a matter of the state government 'using health concerns to strip people of liberties' - unless you're referring to the liberty of people to mutilate their children. The infants have no say in the matter, and it's well-known that those who do have say in whether their genitals are mutilated (i.e., adults) rarely choose to get themselves mutilated..
some churches have a communion cup, and all of the people participating in communion drink from the same cup.
i could see this custom as next on the list.