The word 'Mutilation' - some questions

Avatar for islaywhisky
Community Leader
Registered: 01-06-2002
The word 'Mutilation' - some questions
1
Thu, 05-17-2012 - 8:34pm

We all agree that female circumcision is mutilation, but when the word is used to describe male circumcision there is an outcry condemning its use - yet in physical terms the two are exactly the same. The genitals are cut and nature's intent is destroyed. This is undeniable.

So...

1. Does a parent who chooses to circumcise her/his boy understand this fact?

2. If so, does she/he simply accept his mutilated penis for his current and future good? Or is it a blind act of 'normalcy'?

3. Did nature make a mistake which we must correct until the penis evolves without a foreskin?

4. What peer-reviewed evidence exists in support of a severed foreskin?

5. Finally, an old but frequently asked question: why should a boy be circumcised at birth, rather than leave him intact until he is he is old enough to endure the pain and understand why - in the rare event of it being medically necessary?

Christopher

"Education is the discovery of our own ignorance." Will Durant


"Almost any manmade phenomenon i

Avatar for islaywhisky
Community Leader
Registered: 01-06-2002
Re: The word 'Mutilation' - some questions
Sun, 06-10-2012 - 10:24pm

Ann and Hakunan... thank you for your insight and wisdom. I hope interested visitors have read your replies and departed with food for thought.

I would wish for some input from pro-circ advocates but I think the chances of that are very slim today.

Even if we choose to avoid the word 'mutilation' in conversation, a circumcised penis is a crippled penis.

Christopher

"Education is the discovery of our own ignorance." Will Durant


"Almost any manmade phenomenon i