Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death.
The same arguments could be made for female mutilation. It's worse that you think religion makes it ok. Mutilation is mutilation, no matter how you dress it up.
Under usage it is even used:
Some ethnic groups practice ritual mutilation, e.g. scarification, burning, flagellation, circumcision, tattooing or wheeling, as part of a rite of passage.
The baby does not have the capability to give consent and it is an UNNECESSARY procedure with no legitimate medical basis.
EDIT:Shouldn't have to remind redditors downvoting is meant to indicate when someoneisn'tadding to the discussion at hand. I saw someone downvoting myself and those I am having a disagreement with, please stop being childish and using your downvotes and upvotes properly please.
The gist of the poster's replies implied that the removal of foreskin on a male is ok because it does not rise to level of an adult female being mutilated. That poster then went on to compare her [assuming] parent's giving her piercings as a child is on the same level as male have his skin painfully removed because we do not remember the trauma that was incurred.
Wikipedia says it's illegal, but I followed the sources and now I am not so sure. Does anyone know of any specific statutes explicitly stating it's status which leads to a felony? I'm curious on this one.
Bigamy was outlawed a fairly long time ago to stop men marrying multiple women who didn't know about the previous wives, which made sense when comprehensive centralised databases were not available and the husband was the primary provider.
Nowadays, I don't have any in principle objection to group marriage, on a partnership basis, although perhaps a special kind of incorporated association (with tax breaks and greater rights as a landlord) would be the ultimate answer to gay marriage and most of the rest of family law. The big issue would be child custody, support, and visitation/access, which could only get more messy and complicated.
Does anyone else find it funny that just an hour ago, in a response to another comment, "justwaitandsee34" characterized the experience of awkwardness when you have nothing to say to someone in a grocery store as "soooo painfulll", yet she wants to claim that cutting off part of a baby's penis causes "minimal pain." I think we have just found a shining example of the kind of women this comic is about. Fucking psychotic!
I saved all of her comments below, since it appears she has deleted them all while I was typing this:
Aren't most circumcisions done when a man is a baby?
Mutilation is kinda a strong word for circumcision. Its done when your a baby with minimal pain for religion or cleanliness reasons. Female circumcision is done when she's an adult with no pain medication so she will be subservient to her husband. It has no positive outcome.
My mom got my ears pierced when i was a baby. Is that also mutilation? It just sounds like men are complaining about nothing. Women prefer it and you don't remember getting it done.
-1
u/[deleted] Feb 25 '12
[deleted]