[Mrs. Don-o]

Years ago, my husband and I decided not to have our son circumcised (medically) as a newborn, because it has no religious significance to us as gentile Christians and we did not think it medically necessary.

However, I would say that male circumcision is not morally reprehensible as FGM, because it does not destroy male pleasuring or procreative function. Circumcised males still freely enjoy sexual pleasure --- arousal, erection, orgasm --- and face no heightened risks to sexual/reproductive success.

On the contrary, I'm told there also exists a (perhaps slight) health/hygiene advantage, i.e. reduced transmission of infections. That's why it's still widely done in a totally secular setting.

That's why I think suggesting a direct moral equation between male circumcision with FGM is misdirected.

[AustinBill]

I find male or female genital mutilation a.k.a. "circumcision" a barbaric and morally reprehensible practice, but my personal views on the subject are irrelevant from a legal perspective. We have this thing called the First Amendment which contains the "free exercise" clause concerning religion. When San Francisco tried to ban (male) circumcision a while back, this was defeated as (among other things) a clear First Amendment violation.

So when a similar defense is offered here (and that is the defense that any competent attorney will mount) on what basis will it be argued that this religious practice is not deserving of equal protection? Both are amputating sexual body parts without the consent of those on the receiving end of the practice.

The law is designed to protect people and practices you disagree with, because that's the only protection you have for your own practices that others may equally disagree with.

This is a wedge issue, to be sure. But there is opportunity to use this to widen the debate to other areas of liberty that are under equal assault.