To Cut or not to Cut

Imagine a cultural practice that has been around for centuries, as a central part of religious tradition. A tradition that allows for creating an identity for the community, making one part of something bigger than one's self.

Unfortunately this involves a bit of surgery and removal of a bit of the human anatomy. Something that makes it susceptible to infection (as much or as little as any other minor surgery,) and according to some, makes that bit of the anatomy less sensitive to the elements. Also this procedure is performed on children, generally without consent.

In response to the doubters, the apologists propose several arguments for this procedure:

1. It is a matter of faith, and no one can question what their god has commanded them to do.

2. It is a good thing, because it creates a bond of identity among the believers.

3. It is actually a preventive measure, since it reduces chances of disease, both mental and physical.

And obviously in response, the counter-arguments follow

1. Please let the individuals decide, when they are of a certain age, if they want to go through this process and not impose the parents or the communities will upon a child.

2. If cutting off a piece of anatomy is an important part of identity, the community has bigger problems.

3. Yes, there may be a co-relation between the practice and reduction of infection, but causality is yet to be determined.

So what do you think, should infant female genital mutilation be accepted as a cultural practice?