Slippery Slope
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 2,801
- Reaction score
- 330
- Location
- in a neocon's craw
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
To be honest with you Jallman, when you define mutilation in its absolute sense, you'll notice a kind of mutilation does infact take place during surgery. Whats funny about it though, is that everytime i put a case against others, in terms of politics and biology (be it abortion or this), the opposition likes to go off and use a word that is suitable for the situation but totally not the case and far more dramatic because it gives strength to a weak opinion. For example, Pro-Lifers like to say baby killers instead of the word abortion, im not saying this opinion is wrong, but the word is uneccessary and dramatic and is just a political tool. The argument against circumcision, "mutilating men". In the sense of a word, a mutilation is taking place, but the word is dramatic and uneccessary and again is a political tool for furthering the oppositions case. I had surgery on my toe today. I should not have got it done, because its mutilation. Oh noo!! Yet they refuse to use the word mutilation in other surgeries where the concept is the same: cutting up, extracting, ie heart transplants, etc. The things they agree with is suprisingly not mutilation though the surgerical concept is the same.
Exactly.
Use of the word mutilation in the case of circumcision is correct because it is an unnecessary procedure and is therefore a mutilation. I can and have made my argument quite clear, reasonable and correct without using the word "mutilate". Would you like me to reiterate it for you or will you concede this point?