You're viewing a single thread.
Mutilating the bodies of people too young or otherwise unable to give consent.
This 100% reads to me as an anti-trans post. Maybe that's not your intent, but that's the way it reads. Esp. since anyone under 18 con not legally give consent to anything.
I read it as an anti-circumcision post. You ckuld be right, though.
I want to live in a world where "stop cutting bits of babies dicks off" doesn't require any further explanation.
"No, actually, its you who needs to justify cutting bits of babies dicks off. Not the other way round. Unless its hair, nails or connected to the mum, the default position is actually not to cut bits of the baby off."
Oh lmao I was way off, I was like "damn I'm surprised to see an anti abortion post at +9 -0 on lemmy, wtf?!"
I didn't realize until I read your post lol.
So im asking this question as a person who has had to have an adult circumcision, I get the consent part, but why is this considered mutilation?
Again, im genuinely ignorant of the subject beyond medical requirements
If you chop someone's leg off without consent for no good reason, that's mutilation. If you amputate it with consent for legitimate medical reasons that's a medical procedure.
Because it serves a genuine function, because the process poses an unnecessary risk, because there is no way to know how big the penis is going to get when the kid grows up, and that is part of the reason for the foreskin, to have a ton of give so it doesn't happen like it did to my ex. He got circumcised as a newborn, and by the time he finished puberty, his penis grew far more than the leftover foreskin, so he wasn't even able to have full erections without a tremendous amount of pain and sometimes, even tearing.
vocabulary.com: "When a person or an object has been altered or damaged in a permanent way, that's a mutilation."
it can desensitize the penis and cause health issues and/or sexual dysfunction (arguably its intended consequence). forced body alteration is mutilation