Court stops circumcision.

Last resort has only one meaning (i.e: when all other avenues have been exhausted).

I'm not going to be so short-sighted and lay down a blanket statement saying that I oppose corporal punishment, but I won't strike someone out of anger or frustration.

Male circumcision does have benefits such as lowered risk of penile cancer/infection from smegma build up/UTIs

Circumcised boys still masturbate and orgasm from sex. A fully circumcised girl/woman will be unlikely to climax and will feel either nothing at all or severe discomfort during sex. Not the same.

The benefits are statistically negligable in most cases. That is why the NHS and Medicaid don't perform it for "heath benefits". Only to treat medical conditions.

I'm aware that the benefits are small, but you initially said that there were no benefits at all, so I corrected you

Where a child does not possess the capacity to consent, the parents can do so on his/her behalf (and vice-versa) believing it to be in the best interests of their own child (or parent).

That is my position and if you have any objections to the above, then inform me of them.

Last resort is not a subjective term. It is measurable, and thus, objective.

Anger and frustration are subjective terms, and given that they have no need to be objective, I find no reason nor rationale which counters my argument.

You have failed, quite spectacularly, to back up your claims that last resort and certain emotions are, as you claim, vague.

Being flippant about this isn't helping whatever argument you are trying to present. Instead of presenting pathetic hypotheticals or practices, try arguing against why parents do not have a child's best interests at heart.

They will if only the clitoral hood is removed, which is the equivalent of male circumcision.

You present hypotheticals, yet again.

There is a health benefit in routine mastectomy, but I don't think any sane person would recommend it.

I believe the state should not serve as a surrogate for the upbringing of the child. It should be the parent's responsibility and they should be held accountable for their actions, until such a time where the child is able to exercise his mental faculties independently.

Corporal punishment should be used as a very last resort, after all alternatives are exhausted, and the child should not be hit out of frustration or anger.

"Last resort" is vague and hypothetical. This could differ from people to people...

Last resort has only one meaning (i.e: when all other avenues have been exhausted).

I'm not going to be so short-sighted and lay down a blanket statement saying that I oppose corporal punishment, but I won't strike someone out of anger or frustration.

Last resort is not a subjective term. It is measurable, and thus, objective.

You have failed, quite spectacularly, to back up your claims that last resort and certain emotions are, as you claim, vague.

Pretty sure removal of the clitoral hood increases sensitivity, therefore making sex more enjoyable. This is the opposite of what FGM seeks to achieve. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure that although the clitoral hood may be removed during FGM, parts of the clitoris is also removed in order to reduce sensitivity and stimulation? Because why would they conduct a procedure that will make climaxing easier?

You are kind of going off topic here. All I have said is that there are health benefits to male circumcision, so it is incorrect to say that there aren't.
A masectomy is sometimes recommended to women with a history of breast cancer or a woman carrying the mutated gene.

So, as removing the clitoral hood can increase sexual pleasure, you would support the procedure in infant girls, as long as it did not affect the clitoris itself, and the parents were ok with it.