I guess I am one of those guys rabidly against non-medically necessary circumcision on baby boys. I am thrilled that the rate of circumcision has gone down in this country. I find it barbaric to cut off a section of a baby's skin without any medical necessity. Would it be okay if another religion developed that insisted that ear lobes of babies should be cut off shortly after birth? How about a few toe nails?

I believe that if it were not common and/or practiced in certain western religions, most people would find the tradition abusive. I also feel that any parents that intend to have their baby circumcised when not medically necessary should be required to have part of their skin removed, using just as much anesthesia as will be used on their son. Any adult that chooses to do it for himself is perfectly okay ... it is his choice to have it done. I know a lot of people focus on the sexual part of it. To me that may be relevant, but the simple fact that so many of us find the procedure itself barbaric and abusive is more than enough of a reason to be strongly against it.

If it can be proven that there is a significant medical benefit to doing the procedure, then that is entirely different. But, at least for men in this country, no one has shown that to be the case.

I agree with you - Here's the unanswered e-mail I sent shortly after the show.

This is not as well-composed as I might like, but I need to strike while the iron is hot.

I have never been moved to write into Slate for any podcast before, of the hundreds and hundreds I've listened to, but the "discussion" on circumcision was a bridge too far. The truculent, patronizing tone of all three members of the gabfest was offensive.

It doesn't matter what the reasons may be for performing a circumcision. The fact is that it is an elective cosmetic surgical procedure. While it makes perfect sense for parents to make medical decisions for their babies, it should be noted that nobody performs rhinoplasty on babies, and if they did it would be considered both bizarre and cruel, just as circumcision is self-evidently bizarre to anyone not indoctrinated in its tradition from early in life.

Regardless of the reasons, it should be clear why performing cosmetic surgery on babies is at least worthy of a controversy, and the opposition to it was being dismissed by the panel as crazy or bitchy, the way that women often have been in the past when they have tried to attain rights regarding their bodies.

It's breathtaking how apparently the panel believes that religion gives one an automatic free ride to beyond the reach of scrutiny when supporting the surgical alteration of the genitals of babies to suit the aesthetic tastes of sexually mature adults.

I wonder what Emily would think cultures that ritually scar or partially desensitize the clitoris of all newborn baby girls.