Circumcision is only a valid medical "procedure" (by which you mean destructive genital surgery) when it is performed as an unfortunate last-resort treatment for some rare and serious medical affliction; not even the proposed law bans such legitimate cases.

Parents do not "own their" child; rather, parents are "guardians of a" child.

Also, 'female circumcision' and 'female genital mutilation' are catchall phrases for ANY manipulation of a girl's genitalia, no matter how small, and most forms of female circumcision are much less invasive than male circumcision. Female circumcision is also promoted for the same reasons as male circumcision: Hygiene, cosmetic appeal, prevention of diseases, culture, etc. (and male circumcision was promoted in the near past by both religious and medical leaders as a means of reducing sexual pleasure for both partners).

In 2010, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) tried to introduce a policy that encouraged pediatricians to help some African and Muslim populations perform a ritual nick (pin prick) of the clitoral hood or clitoris or labia, the idea being that the local availability in a medical setting of such a 'purification rite' would be far preferable to these families taking their young daughters to countries where more invasive forms of female genital manipulation take place.

The AAP even tried to smooth over the suggestion by officially noting that such a pin prick is far less invasive than male circumcision.

Very quickly, however, the blogs and media lambasted the AAP for supporting what is defined by *federal* U.S. law as "female genital mutilation"; within a month, the AAP more or less issued a statement of apology and completely wiped the proposal from its websites.

There is clearly a double standard about what 'mutilation' is and what the rights of individuals are; it is an illegal act of 'genital mutilation' to make a reversible pin prick of a girl's labia, but it's completely acceptable (to the point of throwing parties) when somebody (even non-doctors) strip 50% of the shaft tissue from a completely healthy boy, often under torturous conditions without any kind of suitable pain control beyond a drop of sugar water or wine. Which one of these acts is mutilation?

'Pharaonic circumcision' is the worst form of female genital mutilation, whereby the clitoris and labia are amputated and the wound sewn shut; when people think of 'female genital mutilation' or 'female circumcision', this is what they think of, even though it's a minority variant. Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, an activist against genital cutting in general (but female genital cutting specifically), studied this worst form in a 5-year survey of women, and she found that "nearly 90%" of these women still enjoy sex and can orgasm -- which actually mirrors the experience of uncircumcised American women and which, given that 10%-to-15% of female circumcision cases are Pharaonic means that at most 1.4%-to-2.1% of ALL circumcised females have the worst form of female circumcision and say they haven't experienced orgasm (to say nothing of pleasure).

Of course, Pharaonic circumcision has other nasty physical consequences, but that's not at issue here (especially given that Pharaonic circumcision is a minority variant).

However, none of that really matters. Whether or not one is more severe than the other makes no difference. Cutting off healthy genital tissue from a completely healthy child is genital mutilation, regardless of gender or age. What's the point in saying otherwise other than to avoid hurt feelings?

I actually read this long, long, LONG rant. Still doesn't change anything. Just because you are part of a very loud minority doesn't change the fact that you are a minority. Parents still remain responsible for making medical decisions for their child.

Female genital mutilation is forbidden because it's role is to remove sexual feeling in a woman. Circumcision for males has numerous medical benefits, which you have blatantly danced around or ignored in total. I have noticed this is the general tactic in these arguments. They are usually loosely based in propaganda & strawman arguments.

Let me put it into context with use of caps: FEMALE GENERAL CUTTING IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE CIRCUMCISION. To say it is is a lie. It is a strawman argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Circumcision foes I really don't mind. You can have any opinion you want, and take care of your children any way you see fit. However, restricting the rights of other parents in light of the massive amounts of medically proven benefits it is INCREDIBLY rude, invasive, and downright pointless to bully people's decisions for their children.

Circumcision has medical benefits in the same way that cutting off toes is beneficial because it would prevent toenail fungus.

Even the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has more or less officially stated since 1971 that the circumcision of completely healthy children is medically unwarranted:

1971: 'There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.'

Then again in 1975: 'The Committee on Fetus and Newborn of the American Academy of Pediatrics stated in 1971 that there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period. The present committee has undertaken a review of data to support arguments "pro" and "con" circumcision of the newborn, and finds no basis for changing this statement.'

Then again in 1977: 'There are no medical indications for routine circumcisions, and the procedure cannot be considered an essential components of health care.'

Then in 1989, the AAP's policy became slightly pro-circumcision: 'Newborn circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks. When circumcision is being considered, the benefits and risks should be explained to the parents and informed consent obtained.'

However, I think it is interesting to note that the 1989 AAP Task Force on Circumcision was chaired by Edgar J. Schoen, a Jewish doctor who is known for writing poems about circumcision.

The AAP's last official policy on infant circumcision, published in 1999 (and reaffirmed in 2005), reverses back toward a medically uninterested view of circumcision: 'Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.'

The only reason a healthy boy would be circumcised today is because one of his cultural ancestors condemned his sexuality on religious grounds; the medical justifications are preposterous (and are usually a secondary consideration anyway, as numerous studies have shown that parents have this surgery forcibly performed on their children mostly for perceived social reasons).

Of all the men alive today on this planet, only 30% are circumcised (according to the WHO). Of those *circumcised* men:

* 68.8% are Muslim

* 12.8% are non-{Jewish,Muslim} citizens of the U.S.

* 0.8% are Jewish

* 17.6% (the rest) MAINLY come from backwards third-world tribal countries/cultures that have long had (religious) genital cutting rites of one flavor or another; see the link above.

The only reason circumcision is acceptable in the English-speaking world (now pretty much only the U.S., where the OVERALL infant rate is supposedly arround 33% these days) is because the Victorian Christian religious nuts introduced the 'practice' to curb masturbation by making such 'self-abuse' more difficult and less pleasurable, a motive that was not only expressed by Victorian 'doctors', but also by Muslim and Jewish authorities such as the beloved Torah scholar Maimonides.

Most people of the world look upon circumcision as an unfortunate last-resort medical intervention for a few rare and serious medical afflictions. To most of the world, the idea of circumcising a completely healthy child seems bizarre if not cruel or insane.

It's worth remembering that no Americans except for Jewish people and Muslims would circumcise today if it weren't for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.

Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but how that's how they thought back then, and that's how non-religious circumcision got started. If you don't believe me, then check out this link:
http://www.noharmm.org/docswords.htm

Heck, they even passed laws against "self-pollution" as it was called.

Female and male circumcision are more comparable than some people think. Firstly, in countries where female circumcision is done under unhygienic conditions, male circumcision is too (broken glass, no anaesthesia, etc). Many boys die each year in Africa from tribal circumcisions – over 100 young men died last year in just one province of South Africa. In some countries though female circumcision only involves the removal of the clitoral hood - the anatomical equivalent of the foreskin - and is done to babies in sterile conditions, even with pain relief. Check out how it's done in Egypt, Malaysia or Brunei, for example. Circumcised women choose to have their daughters circumcised, citing how it's cleaner, good sexually, reduces secretions and smegma and is generally hygienic, and also mentioning studies showing circumcised women have lower infection rates. Basically the same reasons that people use to defend male circumcision. It's just a cultural difference.

Are you aware that the USA also used to practise female circumcision? Fortunately, it never caught on the same way as male circumcision, but there are middle-aged white US American women walking round today with no clitoris because it was removed. Some of them don't even realise what has been done to them. There are frequent references to the practice in medical literature up until the late 1950's. Most of them point out the similarity with male circumcision, and suggest that it should be performed for the same reasons. Blue Cross/Blue Shield had a code for clitoridectomy till 1977.

One victim wrote a book about it:
Robinett, Patricia (2006). "The rape of innocence: One woman's story of female genital mutilation in the USA."

Medically proven benefits? All these medical society quotes can be found at their own websites:

Canadian Paediatric Society
"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."
"Circumcision is a 'non-therapeutic' procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."
"After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."

Royal Australasian College of Physicians
"In the absence of evidence of risk of substantial harm, informed parental choice should be respected. Informed parental consent should include the possibility that the ethical principle of autonomy may be better fulfilled by deferring the circumcision to adolescence with the young man consenting on his own behalf."
(almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)

British Medical Association
"to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."

The Royal Dutch Medical Association
"The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children's rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications - bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications."