mutilation

You mean premarital sex, homosexuality, genital mutilation and women showing their faces?

Moreover, having to engage in genital mutilation so as to avoid being tricked/lied/forced into fatherhood is hardly progressive.

If he had faced a corporeal punishment (death penalty or mutilation), he might have had a case.

Therefore, it's perfectly possible to judge the approval of female genital mutilation as wrong - just as long as I realize that the judgment is subjective.

Parents have rights that government does not, but those rights do not include brutal beating or mutilation -- or compelled abortion.

Claims from religious devotees (or former devotees) about fasting or magic underwear, or genital mutilation benefits or miseries should be completely disregarded.

Your argument therefore appears to be one of scale – plants are sufficiently different, in your opinion, that eating them is not mutilation.

I'm of the opinion that animals are sufficiently different from humans that eating them is not mutilation.

In Denmark and Sweden, circumcision is banned because it is considered genital mutilation.

Mandatory genital mutilation is immoral, in the end, because no one ones another person's body, and no one has authority over another person's body.

At the current state of technology i do see that adopting such a basis would lead to the choice of pills over surgical mutilation.

>misogynist wants their daughter to have a reduced sex drive Number of instances of female genital mutilation is absolutely insane.

So a moral relativist can say something like "I dislike your approval of female genital mutilation", but this is not a claim about the rightness or wrongness of the approval of female genital mutilation.

<soapbox> The line regarding circumcision should be drawn at "genital mutilation".

There are "immoral laws" and there are "immoral laws." Mandatory female genital mutilation is an "immoral law." Making drugs illegal might be bad policy, but I don't think it rises to the level of immorality.