Quote Originally Posted by Gibbonator View Post
Actually, I believe there is a substantive difference between circumcision (which in most cases isn't 'needless') and permanent destruction of a major body function. The same as there's a difference between cutting one's nails and cutting off one's hand.


They specialise in superficial restoration of the body, or aesthetic enhancement rather than mutilation.


Which makes the moral judgement of these women even more questionable as it is taking advantage of someone who is of unsound mind for financial gain.


I don't believe that our rights regarding our own bodies extend to the right to damage or destroy it. But even if it did, I should hope that most people would not agree to inflict such violence upon another person. A person's consent does not make everything right.


I can't speak for everyone, but I suspect that most people's moral outlook has more substance than them simply not liking it.
So circumcision isn't mutilation? It's the disfigurement through removal of a part of the body. And circumcision IS needless.