German court bans circumcision of young boys

mijopaalmc said:
Again, the point is that mole is not necessarily a dysfunctional part of the body.
Click to expand...
Indeed, I would go as far as to say a mole is not typically a dysfunctional part of the body. Surgery to remove moles is done for purely cosmetic reasons in the vast majority of cases.
 
zeggman said:
Indeed, I would go as far as to say a mole is not typically a dysfunctional part of the body. Surgery to remove moles is done for purely cosmetic reasons in the vast majority of cases.
Click to expand...

Hence the analogy with circumcision.

Circumcision is rarely necessary, and is purely cosmetic in the vast majority of cases.
 
Bram Kaandorp said:
That is because moles don't have an important function. If you remove the foreskin, you remove a functional piece of skin.
Click to expand...

Removing a mole removes a functional piece of skin. It's function was covering the part of the body that it was removed from.
 
Bram Kaandorp said:
That is because moles don't have an important function. If you remove the foreskin, you remove a functional piece of skin.
Click to expand...
When my parents had my wisdom teeth removed, they were removing functional teeth. In retrospect, I would have to say that they were serving a non-essential function, since the remaining teeth seem to get the job done just as effectively.

I'm still with the "parents should probably just let their boys grow up and decide whether or not they want their foreskin" faction, but I also agree that calling circumcision "mutilation" (except in cases where it's botched and really becomes mutilation) is just over-the-top hysteria.
 
Last edited:
zeggman said:
When my parents had my wisdom teeth removed, they were removing functional teeth. In retrospect, I would have to say that they were serving a non-essential function, since the remaining teeth seem to get the job done just as effectively.

I'm still with the "parents should probably just let their boys grow up and decide whether or not they want their foreskin" faction, but I also agree that calling circumcision "mutilation" (except in cases where it's botched and really becomes mutilation) is just over-the-top hysteria.
Click to expand...

And it trivializes FGM.
 
zeggman said:
When my parents had my wisdom teeth removed, they were removing functional teeth. In retrospect, I would have to say that they were serving a non-essential function, since the remaining teeth seem to get the job done just as effectively.
Click to expand...

Wisdom teeth cause problems more often than not, if I'm not mistaken.

I'm still with the "parents should probably just let their boys grow up and decide whether or not they want their foreskin" faction, but I also agree that calling circumcision "mutilation" (except in cases where it's botched and really becomes mutilation) is just over-the-top hysteria.
Click to expand...

Mutilation has gained a negative connotation, but in a regular discussion such as this, I think it better to read words in a non-confrontational context, lest someone misunderstands someone else and feels insulted.
 
Bram Kaandorp said:
Mutilation has gained a negative connotation, but in a regular discussion such as this, I think it better to read words in a non-confrontational context, lest someone misunderstands someone else and feels insulted.
Click to expand...
Removal of wisdom teeth is also not called mutilation, even when (as in my case) a good bit of healthy gum tissue is removed in the process.

Perhaps instead of asking people to read words which have gained a negative connotation in a non-confrontational context, one could just employ the non-confrontational term "circumcision" when writing.
 
Last edited:
zeggman said:
Removal of wisdom teeth is also not called mutilation, even when (as in my case) a good bit of healthy gum tissue is removed in the process.

Perhaps instead of asking people to read words which have gained a negative connotation in a non-confrontational context, one could just employ the non-confrontational term "circumcision" when writing.
Click to expand...

Unless of course if we want to say "circumcision is mutilation" (which it is).

"circumcision is circumcision" doesn't work, since mutilation is not a synonym of circumcision.
 
Can you show me an instance where "mutilation" is used in a neutral-to-positive context?
 
Bram Kaandorp said:
Unless of course if we want to say "circumcision is mutilation" (which it is).

"circumcision is circumcision" doesn't work, since mutilation is not a synonym of circumcision.
Click to expand...
Well, then, let's not pretend that the confrontational context is being created by a misunderstanding on the part of the reader.

As someone who has been circumcised, de-wisdom-toothed, and tonsillectomized, I don't think the term "mutilation" is an accurate description of any of my childhood surgeries.
 
mijopaalmc said:
Can you show me an instance where "mutilation" is used in a neutral-to-positive context?
Click to expand...

I never said "neutral-to-positive".

Sure, Mutilation is a negative term, but just because it's negative doesn't mean it isn't apt.

Which other word can I use in place of "mutilation" when I actually do mean mutilation? I do mean mutilation. I don't just use it as a shock tactic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom