- Joined
- Feb 4, 2013
- Messages
- 28,659
- Reaction score
- 18,803
- Location
- Charleston, South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Surgical Sterilization and the definition of "Mutilation"
There was some controversy in a different thread regarding whether or not medical procedures performed with the intent to sterilize could accurately be described as falling under the auspices of physical "mutilation." A number of "arguments" - and I use that term loosely, none of them were actually good - were presented. I will refute all of those arguments here, and illustrate the reasons why the term, LOGICALLY, fits.
First off, let's begin with a reasonable, generic (one might even say 'text-book'), definition of the term "mutilation." That can be found here.
How does that relate to procedures like Vasectomy, Tubal Litigation, (Elective) Hysterectomy, or Castration? Well, it does so quite obviously if one actually takes the time to think, rather than blindly emote based upon social convention. Just break it down piece by piece.
Again, we are basically working with the following: "Mutilation - A physical injury causing degradation to the look or function of a living body."
Do all of these procedures cause "physical injury?" Yes. All surgery ultimately does.
Keep in mind, that is not an "opinion." It is a fact.
Cutting into living flesh is "physical injury."
Do they negatively affect the appearance and function of the body? Also yes. The nature of the "physical injury" caused by the surgery is sufficient to prevent the reproductive organs from serving their full biological function.
This is also not an "opinion," but a fact. Function has, objectively, been lost.
To address a few other, supplemental, qualifiers raised by others in that thread...
Merriam-Webster: Mutilate
(Optional #1) Is it "permanent?" For all intents and purposes, yes. It is permanent. The effects of the operation will not be reversed, under normal circumstances, unless one has further, corrective, surgery to repair the damage to the reproductive organs done by the original surgery.
Again, that is not an "opinion." That is objective fact.
(Optional #2) Is it "severe?" This question is, quite frankly, silly, because it is, by nature, subjective, and arguably not strictly necessary to the definition to begin with as such. Someone could quite easily argue that anything, no matter how seemingly major, wasn't truly "severe" given a sufficiently warped mindset if we were to take this single criteria as being of the utmost necessity some are suggesting. Medically, however, I would argue that permanently causing damage to one's reproductive organs heavy enough to prevent them from serving their biological function is sufficiently "severe" to warrant the descriptor.
After all, electively cutting off a finger (even a pinky, or just a finger tip) would be viewed by most as being "severe" enough to count as "mutilation" by any reasonable definition of the word, and that has negligible impact on either function or appearance. Why on Earth wouldn't robbing one's self of their reproductive functionality qualify as well?
Unless we're going to simply brand the entire word effectively meaningless in the name of "relativism" (to which I say, 'stop being droll,' words must also have objective meanings if they are going to mean anything at all :roll: ), surgical sterilization does, reasonably, and deductively, seem to fit the necessary criteria for being considered "severe." As such, it does also fit the technical criteria for "mutilation."
To recap, surgical sterilization fits basically all necessary criteria to fit any given definition of the word "mutilation."
It is A) a form of physical damage or alteration to the body, which B) causes harm to the form and function of that same body with no tangible medical benefit, while being both C) permanent, and D) doing so to a degree which can reasonably be called "severe."
There was some controversy in a different thread regarding whether or not medical procedures performed with the intent to sterilize could accurately be described as falling under the auspices of physical "mutilation." A number of "arguments" - and I use that term loosely, none of them were actually good - were presented. I will refute all of those arguments here, and illustrate the reasons why the term, LOGICALLY, fits.
First off, let's begin with a reasonable, generic (one might even say 'text-book'), definition of the term "mutilation." That can be found here.
Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body.
How does that relate to procedures like Vasectomy, Tubal Litigation, (Elective) Hysterectomy, or Castration? Well, it does so quite obviously if one actually takes the time to think, rather than blindly emote based upon social convention. Just break it down piece by piece.
Again, we are basically working with the following: "Mutilation - A physical injury causing degradation to the look or function of a living body."
Do all of these procedures cause "physical injury?" Yes. All surgery ultimately does.
Keep in mind, that is not an "opinion." It is a fact.
Cutting into living flesh is "physical injury."
Do they negatively affect the appearance and function of the body? Also yes. The nature of the "physical injury" caused by the surgery is sufficient to prevent the reproductive organs from serving their full biological function.
This is also not an "opinion," but a fact. Function has, objectively, been lost.
To address a few other, supplemental, qualifiers raised by others in that thread...
Merriam-Webster: Mutilate
Simple Definition of mutilate
: to cause severe damage to (the body of a person or animal)
: to ruin the beauty of (something) : to severely damage or spoil (something)
Full Definition of mutilate
mu·ti·lat·edmu·ti·lat·ing
transitive verb
1
: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect
2
: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple
(Optional #1) Is it "permanent?" For all intents and purposes, yes. It is permanent. The effects of the operation will not be reversed, under normal circumstances, unless one has further, corrective, surgery to repair the damage to the reproductive organs done by the original surgery.
Again, that is not an "opinion." That is objective fact.
(Optional #2) Is it "severe?" This question is, quite frankly, silly, because it is, by nature, subjective, and arguably not strictly necessary to the definition to begin with as such. Someone could quite easily argue that anything, no matter how seemingly major, wasn't truly "severe" given a sufficiently warped mindset if we were to take this single criteria as being of the utmost necessity some are suggesting. Medically, however, I would argue that permanently causing damage to one's reproductive organs heavy enough to prevent them from serving their biological function is sufficiently "severe" to warrant the descriptor.
After all, electively cutting off a finger (even a pinky, or just a finger tip) would be viewed by most as being "severe" enough to count as "mutilation" by any reasonable definition of the word, and that has negligible impact on either function or appearance. Why on Earth wouldn't robbing one's self of their reproductive functionality qualify as well?
Unless we're going to simply brand the entire word effectively meaningless in the name of "relativism" (to which I say, 'stop being droll,' words must also have objective meanings if they are going to mean anything at all :roll: ), surgical sterilization does, reasonably, and deductively, seem to fit the necessary criteria for being considered "severe." As such, it does also fit the technical criteria for "mutilation."
To recap, surgical sterilization fits basically all necessary criteria to fit any given definition of the word "mutilation."
It is A) a form of physical damage or alteration to the body, which B) causes harm to the form and function of that same body with no tangible medical benefit, while being both C) permanent, and D) doing so to a degree which can reasonably be called "severe."
Last edited: