The question of whether circumcision is "mutiltation" is contentious. It very much depends on one's attitude towards circumcision, especially whether one considers it beneficial or not. The (5000-page) Shorter Oxford Dictionary says
Mutilate (miü·tilëit), v. 1534. [f. L. mutilat-, ppl. stem of mutilare to lop off; f. mutilus maimed (cf. Gr. mutiloV [mutilos] hornless); see -ATE3.] 1. trans. To deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or organ of the body; to cut off or otherwise destroy the use of (a limb or organ) 1562. 2. To render (a thing, e.g. a record, etc) imperfect by cutting off or destroying a part 1534.
Circumcision fits all of the second part of 1.
|to cut off or otherwise destroy the use of (a limb or organ)|
The derivation from the Greek for "hornless" is also suggestive. The farmer may think dehorning cattle improves them, the cattle may not. Likewise castration.
Jewish Journal, August 4, 2009
Mutilation [is] the only honest name for this raw act that my wife and I have twice invited men with knives to come into our house and perform, in the presence of all our friends and family, with a nice buffet and Weekend Cake from Just Desserts. We have been through all of the standard arguments—hygiene, cancer prevention, psychological fitness, the Zero Mostel tradition . . . and found they are all debatable at best.“
- Michael Chabon, "Manhood for Amateurs"
Back to the Intactivism index page.