Legally, I completely understand this ruling and have a degree of sympathy with it since there can be little doubt that it is technically mutilation and due to the age at which it is carried out the child's consent is not given, and of course the procedure is irreversible. But a whole host of other issues appear to be getting grafted onto it as well, so I worry that it opens the gates for multiple other "rights of the child" issues. Where will it stop? Prosecuting parents for having their infants baptized? Plus of course it increases the likelihood of the procedure being done by those who are medically unqualified and in non-sterile conditions.