My comment here involves destroyed genitals of humans by humans, certainly not a reason to be a happy human if you are among the affected, and it's hundreds of millions of them.
And it is in the branch of discussion of animals destroying their genitals as the necessary condition for reproduction. Consider that the partial destruction of genitals is also effectively necessary condition for reproduction if you are unlucky enough to be born there and female.
What I thought made it non-relevant is that FGM is cultural, not genetic or a species wide aspect of our psychology (regardless of whether it affects millions). Additionally,I don't think you made a good case as to why being born as a species that has to contend with bad conditions (but I don't believe worse than the alternative) isn't preferable to being born a species that has to contend with death at every attempted mating.
In short, it felt a bit like you used FGM for impact due to it's status in our culture, not for it's relevance to the discussion at hand. It's possible I'm not seeing a connection you thought was implied there though, so feel free to expand if you feel like it.
On that level it's not different from any kind of contraception, also widely done in humanity, so not really insightful there. It's interesting to me only because it's a religious "trick," a way to do something what is formally not forbidden. Like
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtful-animal/once-u...
"Once Upon A Time, The Catholic Church Decided That Beavers Were Fish"
...in order to eat their meat at the times of fasting. The rest of the article has more examples.
Your points about the hardships of being human depending on birth circumstance are important, and deserve attention in general, but I don't think they're really constructive to the discussion at hand, or at least this little branch of it.