Vehement disagreement over my views on MGM has become a perennial feature of the Dish (I addressed the latest batch just last month). Another reader writes:

I was taken aback when you wrote:

I support a religious exemption for Muslims and Jews. But routine mutilation for no reason at all? Let a man decide when he's old enough to make the decision about his own body, and what others may do to it without his consent.

Two problems with this:  (1) there are compelling individual and public health reasons to encourage male circumcision; and (2) infant circumcision is significantly safer than adult circumcision.  (Both points are well documented in this fact sheet by the CDC.)  The risk-benefit calculus here is not unlike that in deciding whether to vaccinate a child.  In both cases, the need for "consent" is overridden by the parent's legitimate right to care for and protect his or her child.

Since children have no reason to fear any consequences from not being mutilated, this notion of protecting the child is bullshit. The analogy with vaccination is deranged. But if an adult man decides it would be in the interests of his health to cut off his foreskin, he should have every right to do so. Another:

I hate to keep harping on the same subject every time you mention it (she says as if you could possibly remember one of 2 million readers) but you keep not making sense.