Nice troll. No male infant has ever died from routine, unnecessary circumsion, huh? So is it about complications, or what? Surely, there aren't ever complications associated with male circumcision. One must be a "tin-foil hatter" to think that.
For some reason this happening to female children is far worse than it happening to males. Right? Or is it about the unnecessary removal of sexual tissue in the first place? It's wrong to do this to girls, but fine to do to boys? What kind of sick routine N.O.W. emasculation can be justified here?
After all, women still have the A,G, and U spots, so it's not like it's all gone. Once most of the specialized male tissue is gone, there aren't many places to go poking around to find more. What's the problem with removing specialized sexual tissue for religious purposes? Jews, Muslims and Christians (for some strange reason) do it to boys. What's the problem with girls?
If you want to agree with me that it's sheer lunacy to do this to any child, fine. But, don't act as though a man has to be crazy to believe it's unconscienable to do this to either gender, against the will of the child.
Equating female genital mutilation, which flat *removes* the primary sexual ganglia, with male circumcision, reveals either huge ignorance of the medical facets of these two things, or a hugely disingenuous agenda about something involved in one, or both, of the two procedures.
Maybe you don’t mind little boys running around with stinking festering smegma in their pants. I’m glad my parents had me clipped so I didn’t have to endure the hygiene problems and possible penile cancer associated with uncircumsicion.