Throughout the continent of Africa and parts of Arabia and Asia, girls -- generally between ages 4 and 8 -- are subjected to an unspeakable cruelty. In a rite of passage, an elder removes their genitalia -- usually without anesthesia. Herbal pastes may be applied later to help heal the wound. The procedure leaves the girls permanently scarred, unable to ever have normal sex lives.

The human-rights organization Amnesty International estimates that 135 million girls have undergone various forms of genital mutilation, which ranges from a clitoridectomy to stitching the entire vaginal area closed except for a small opening for urination.

For some, the procedure has religious meaning. Amnesty International reports that although the practice predates Islam, it was adopted by some Muslims and survived among Christian converts. Ethiopian Jews also practice it.

But for most, the ritual serves strictly cosmetic or cultural purposes, including controlling women's sexuality.

"If you ask people who practice female genital mutilation, they'll tell you that it just makes the female anatomy look nicer and it's cleaner, " says Birmingham resident Norm Cohen. "And those are the same nonsensical justifications we use to circumcise boys."

Cohen is the director of the Michigan chapter of the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC), a nonprofit organization that educates parents and health-care professionals about the negative effects of circumcision. NOCIRC argues that circumcision of boys and girls is a barbaric violation of the integrity of children's bodies.

Global organizations like the United Nations have organized to stop female genital mutilation. But male circumcision remains widely accepted. The United States routinely circumcises a majority of its infants for nonreligious reasons.

That may be changing. Last week, the American Academy of Pediatrics stated that the medical benefits of circumcision aren't compelling enough to prescribe the procedure as a matter of course.

Cohen argues that the AAP statement falls short: "They didn't at all address the function of the foreskin. It protects the penis like a glove, and it does provide sexual stimulation. It's strange that when it comes to removing the female genitalia, the AAP released a strong statement opposing it. But when it comes to preventing the ritual removal of part of the male genitalia, the same organization stops short of condemning the procedure."

Cohen says that if parents had access to more accurate information, many more would opt to forgo the procedure.

"My husband was all for circumcision when we were expecting our son," says Karina, a close friend of mine originally from the West Coast, who asked me to not use her full name. "My attitude was: 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' "

But, says Karina, her husband saw a circumcision in a slide show during a childbirth class. "That was it for him," says Karina. The couple decided against circumcising their son.

But parents like Karina and her husband are rare. It will be generations before the practice vanishes in America, just as tradition will continue to subject young girls to mutilation across the globe.

I don't know what I would do if I faced the decision today, but it's hard to disagree that surgically removing ANYTHING from a child's body without a legitimate medical reason is the unkindest cut of all.

To leave a message for Desiree Cooper, call 1-313-222-6625 or E-mail her at cooper@freepress.com