And live with the ramifications of that choice.

https://www.propublica.org/article/you-snooze-you-lose-insurers-make-the-old-adage-literally-true

If it is legal in Michigan to cut off pieces of your infant's genitals, are there other laws that prevent you from, for instance, cutting off your infant's feet or hands? If not, why not, and if so, why are genitals excluded from this law?

Because circumcision probably. Not sure as I am not up on MI laws.

Male circumcision I should say

Its only "legal", becuase Muslims/Minoritys do it

Christians and Jews circumise boys as well.

I don't see why it should be legal tbh

I agree, which is why MI and other states are passing laws against at FGM.

They should all do so

```Christians and Jews circumise boys as well.```
a) that doesn't make it better
b) its worse for Females than for Boys as the boys still can enjoy fucking afterwards, the females can not

But the bottom.line is that it's not a federal issue.

There is a legitimate affliction, where the cure is penis circumcision.
My translation to ebglish: narrowation of foreskin [sic]

All the judge said is that it was not a federal issue.

I thought you all were for smaller, more limited government

This is exactly what that means

If it's not given to the Feds, it belongs with the states or the people

The Congress tried to justify thier law under interstate commerce which is ludicrous.

Not everyone here is

It's time we stopped pissing on the 10th Amendment by saying quite literally everything we do is interstate commerce

I am though

I'm just trying to figure out what legal loophole allows any form of circumcision at all, male or female.

Depends on the Issue

Is there a specific law saying you can cut off these bits but not those bits, etc.

It is a medical procedure that isn't reversible, so normally you can only do neccessary procedures.

I have no idea, really, Atkins. Again, I elected not to circumcised our son despite it being traditional in our family.

so the only thing left is religious freedom

Laws typically proscribe, not allow.

So, there would need to be a law banning, I don't know, medically unnecessary mutilation.

Which, among circumcision, would also stop most piercings.

My sons are not circumcized. The youngest one had an issue where his foreskin was too tight and painful to pull back/clean around. Surgery was an option that thankfully didn't need to happen as they now have ointments that help

I'm assuming there must be some law which proscribes cutting off pieces of your children, and I could understand how there could be an exception for male circumcision. Not that I agree with the practice but I can understand how it could be there due to historical norms. But I really can't believe there is an exception specifically for FGM.

I don't think there is? I believe a parent could have a portion of their child's ear hacked off, for example.

That is murkey water. You would need to write it so children can give blood samples, have their hair cut, teeth removed, nails trimmed, cancerous or infected growths removed etc.

No, I think most of those are pretty clear medical necessities.

The nature of hair and nails as unliving I think would stop it from being mutilation.

Your definition of necessity is different than mine

If you intend to make a permanent alteration to your child's body, it ought to be only under strict medical necessity.

Temporary alteration like haircuts are not that big of a deal.

It isn't medically necessary to remove teeth to avoid crowding and future dental deformities

If your mom gives you a dopey haircut you'll grow out of it.