[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

I love you Niamh... but if you think male circumcision and female genital mutilation are at all comparable, you really don't know enough about FGM.

They're not equatable in terms of physical impact at all, and it can be necessary for medical reasons, or chosen as a matter of preference (as a circumcised male I imagine that I probably prefer it, though admittedly don't know the alternative ) HOWEVER there is a comparison to be made beyond the physical.

I am 100% against the unnecessary circumcision of infants for any reason other than medical. For the simple reason that I am 100% against the notion that a parent owns the body of their child. No further discussion involved: it is just simply NOT their choice. Making any physical alteration to another person's body without their informed consent is abhorrent, full stop. An infant or child cannot consent to the procedure, and so carrying it out without a medical reason should be considered deliberate bodily harm. Simple as that .

If later in life someone decides to be circumcised, for ANY reason - health, aesthetics, religion/culture - that's fine, great, go for it, totally a personal choice. Much like a piercing or tattoo I guess. It's just not OK to permanently physically alter your children in any way .