Jophiel wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Not to nitpick, but Joph kinda alluded to that just now with his anecdote about his cousin.
Not at all. I was questioning the notion that we were going to start throwing the word "mutilation" around without any agreed upon definition. I would say the physical effects upon my cousin were much more dramatic than the effects of a standard circumcision but you seem to think that it doesn't count as mutilation.
I could make the same analogies towards myself.
I have a condition called Arthrogryposis Multiplex Congenita. Amongst other things I was born with clubbed feet and severely limited use of my hands. I underwent surgeries from the time I was 18 months old until I was 15, to give me the ability to walk, run, use a pen, type and almost everything other people can do.
The surgeries were very invasive and have left me with numerous scars. Likewise with your cousin, I wouldn't consider this to be mutilation, because they were necessary for me to live a 'normal' life.
Circumcision, on the other hand, as I've said above, is not necessary to live a 'normal' life. Also, as I said above, the benefits gained can be achieved by other means, without the need for surgery. This is why I would classify it as genital mutilation. It is unnecessary. I would consider most cosmetic surgery to be mutilation, too, by the way. All though most people arrive at that decision by themselves, it's not forced upon them by a parent or guardian.