Why do you speak of mutilation?

2021-09-06 08:02:06 TERRY

So many circumcision opponents speak instead of "circumcision" of "mutilation", I think I'm not just talking to me if I say that sometimes hurts.

Basically, it is always problematic if you in the Autonomy of the body intervenes, the criticism can I understand whether a circumcision is now hurting, neutral or even health-promoting, so it should not go now, even whether the look is a legitimate reason for this, I only ask for the conceptuality . Everyone may, if it is concerned with their own body, decide whether to make a circumcision on or even in themselves, as is

As long as it is just about talking about it, why do you use this name?

I think that something onlyDoes Fronten harden and what does me noticeable to me that one feels worse than those affected, why do you still use him? What should that bring?


EDIT: Since I pointed out that it could come to misunderstandings, I only refer to male circumcision.


Because it biological A mutilation is, although some proponents on devil community want to see an aesthetic benefit.


My interpretations:

These discussions are about that small children at a young age due to external cultural influences a surgical procedure at their fully healthy and functional Sex parts are operated.

The children are rarely asked, or can not understand the extent of the procedure and thus of the intervention itself and the consequences of life of course KEIncidentally agree.

Based on this situation, the circumcision itself can be considered as personal injury and / or mutilation.

It is not about people who make this intervention for health reasons or adulthood. These people either have no choice or decide deliberately for the procedure and any consequences for life following.

A circumcised person should therefore not be attacked or remedied.

One is not a poorer person, at most a victim of people who could never agree to such an intervention.

And those who have made the decision themselves are then simply people who have this surgical procedure make.


Because it - especially when it happens against the will of the - or at one age, where the person may not comment on his will, a crime is. And on "hardened fronts", only the proponents complain of this pointless procedure.

If someone does voluntarily explain it from himself, that's something else.

But even then it is one (Even) mutilation. It is truncated what is there because nature has something in "thought". It is - in the very best case - a pointless risk. And not infrequently but a crime.

Everyone may, if it is concerned with their own body, decide whether one is a circumcised to or even in itselfAesst, as is

Easy - that's exactly what ..... 90% of the circumcisions are made to unmitled children for religious reasons.

Here is not asked if the boy is that Will or not.

For me, this is injury and mutilation without consent.

Everyone may decide if it is concerned with their own body Or even in itself, however

... and you believe, small guys are trimmed / have been choosing that yourself?

How do you come to this idea?


It's not about whether woman leaves a circumcised in / in itself.

It's about the decision of the boys.

Why do you speak of mutilation?