And what of Male Genital Mutilation? Despite being 10 times more common, no one seems to care about that. Gender doesn't matter, mutilation is mutilation, they both take away the child's right to chose.

By Nitesh | April 9, 2009 12:26 AM

This is a good step to protect baby girls. If only midwives had the same support in trying to prevent male circumcision. Why do both sexes not receive equal protection?

By Caroline | April 9, 2009 2:56 AM

This is a good move for the right reasons. Comparing female circumcision to male circumcision ignores the enormous risks now and later in female circumcision and the actual medical benefits in male circumcision. The two for many reasons is not a fair comparison.

By bet | April 9, 2009 8:37 AM

Children of BOTH sexes deserve and are entitled to protection under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. No genital cutting that is medically unnecessary should be ignored or tolerated. Human rights supersede "culture".

By Caroline | April 10, 2009 5:48 AM

No child's genitals should be in danger of being cut. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that children are to be protected from harmful cultural practices and that all people have the right to body integrity. It is only a matter of time before people of all nationalities aknowlege this.

By Caroline | April 10, 2009 5:51 AM

The Universal declaration of Human rights ? Please, one more un-enforceable ignored UN document especialy involving those that force female circumcision. Hey, how about real rights, for the babies in the womb! (the right to live!)

By bet | April 12, 2009 10:43 PM

There are no benefits in FGM frankly, except that the sexual sentiment or satisfying means of the female victims are disabled leaving them with discomfort and miseries which could lead to a short live span.

By A Khan | June 5, 2009 3:40 PM