This one came up today: Justifying circumcision because of fears of the boy being teased by others for not being "normal". This excuse is glaringly obviously defective because it works just as well to justify FGM in countries where that is the norm. The predictable objection to this is that male circumcision is less severe than FGM. But depending on the FGM, this may or may not be true. FGM can mean anything from clitoral ablation to the recently proposed and immediately (and properly) attacked and abandoned idea of slightly nicking the labia to keep pro-FGM parents from seeking more damaging forms. The fact that even said nicking is considered completely unacceptable despite being indisputably less impacting than male circumcision and being likely to deter worse mutilation proves that the severity of the mutilation is not the issue. If you oppose infant FGM you must also oppose infant MGM or you are a hypocrite. The tendency of people to engage in these logically defective excuses for accepting MGM but not FGM is pathetic and responding to having the hypocrisy pointed out with insults is cretinous and will get you blocked as was the case with the ex-follower who used the one addressed in this post did. As a parent it is your job to do what is best for your child's long term interests, not engage in convenient but false rationalizations to excuse not doing it.