I am guessing that you are asking about boy circumcision vs. female genital mutilation? If this is the case, the circumcision of a boy has been proven to be not only safe but it can be very healthy for the boy. It is easier to clean a circumcised boy than it is to clean a non circumcised boy. The boy who is not circumcised is also in greater danger of yeast infections, urinary tract infections and other skin irritations. I personally know some men who have opted to get circumcised when they were older because they were tired of the infections and the reactions of their female companions. I have also heard that after the circumcision intimacy is far better than it was before. As far as female genital mutilation goes, the female will lose all sensation making intimacy nothing pleasurable and non desirable, often even painful. There are no health benefits, no elimination of infections, and future husbands will not find the view more desirable, in fact the result will probably be less desirable.
both forms of genital mutilation in my book are unacceptable. Many babies die as a result of this practice although the vast majority of them are girls. the foreskin is not a vestigial appendage people! it protects the most sensitive part of your penis and sure you need to pay closer attention to your personal hygiene but since when is that a bad thing?
Female genital mutilation is a sick, disgusting practice. It is punishable by a heavy sentence in prison in some parts of the world and for good reason. Only the sickest type of person would allow or cut up a small infant's vagina. Many infants die of blood loss, shock, and infection. whether I have a son or a daughter it doesn't matter. Anyone dares come near my child with a sharp object especially pointed at their genitals is going to find me ripping their gonads off and shoving it down their throat with my favorite gun.