Those that get it done for medical reasons being called mutilation would be offensive.
Right, because they weren’t mutilated, they had to have a procedure done for a medical reason.
Any non-medically necessary surgery to a child’s genitals is mutilation. They have no way to consent, and anything short of a medical necessity is the parent making massive changes to their child’s life based on their preferences. To make the point crystal clear:
If I have a kid and the arm ends up gangrenous, we would remove it as it would be medically necessary for the child’s well-being
If I have a kid and think it’s cool to have one arm, I would be trying to mutilate my child by removing it for no reason
How is performing a medically unnecessary surgery on a child’s genitals not mutilation? Again, you’re changing their body surgically without their consent for no reason aside from ignorant beliefs.
How do you feel about female infants getting their ears pierced?
Also, removing an arm and removing some skin is really not the same. Specially considering that removing that skin has proven health benefits for the baby.
I dislike the ‘mutilated’ label being applied and take it as an insult because of the negative connotations despite not personally having any downsides. It is like claiming that everyone who is overweight based on BMI is unhealthy despite many athletes having a high BMI due to having a lot of muscle.
Plus the person I was responding to said adults who voluntarily chose to get circumcised are mutilated themselves. With that logic ear piercings and voluntarily removing annoying, but not medically probematic moles is mutilation. My point is that you can’t just ignore the negative connotations and use a broad brush to describe people while claiming it is technically accurate.
No, it should not be done to babies without a medical necessity. That doesn’t mean calling everyone who has been circumcised mutilated won’t come across as insulting.
Right, because they weren’t mutilated, they had to have a procedure done for a medical reason.
Any non-medically necessary surgery to a child’s genitals is mutilation. They have no way to consent, and anything short of a medical necessity is the parent making massive changes to their child’s life based on their preferences. To make the point crystal clear:
How is performing a medically unnecessary surgery on a child’s genitals not mutilation? Again, you’re changing their body surgically without their consent for no reason aside from ignorant beliefs.
How do you feel about female infants getting their ears pierced?
Also, removing an arm and removing some skin is really not the same. Specially considering that removing that skin has proven health benefits for the baby.
I dislike the ‘mutilated’ label being applied and take it as an insult because of the negative connotations despite not personally having any downsides. It is like claiming that everyone who is overweight based on BMI is unhealthy despite many athletes having a high BMI due to having a lot of muscle.
Plus the person I was responding to said adults who voluntarily chose to get circumcised are mutilated themselves. With that logic ear piercings and voluntarily removing annoying, but not medically probematic moles is mutilation. My point is that you can’t just ignore the negative connotations and use a broad brush to describe people while claiming it is technically accurate.
No, it should not be done to babies without a medical necessity. That doesn’t mean calling everyone who has been circumcised mutilated won’t come across as insulting.
The negitive connotations are justified in this case