I'm not the one who started talking about "mutilation".  I posed
a hypothetical question as to if there were a society whose cultural norm
was to torture children, would that make torturing children ok because a
society exists that thinks so.  This was related to my original attempt at
a definition of something that would definitely be right or wrong, wrong
being crossing another person's boundary in a manner that harms them.  

At that point the "circumcision is mutilation" contingent changed
the entire topic by saying circumcision was torturing children.

Breast augmentation doesn't fit into my original statement because the
person having the operation has requested it.  If the operation were
performed against the person's will and without her permission, then it
would be wrong by my definition, because any surgery entails health risks
and breast augmentation provides no health benefits that justify other
kinds of surgery by outweighing the health risks.

> From: "Geo." 
> Ok good, so we seem to agree then that augmentation is not health reasons,
> so would that then qualify as a society approved mutilation?
> Geo.
> "Ellen K."  wrote in message
> news:smtfpvs8patjp73q4jc61c5qiu03hkb2t5{at}4ax.com...
>> Women who have a mastectomy may opt for breast reconstruction afterwards
>> for their psychological health.   I have a cousin who had a double
>> mastectomy and opted for reconstruction.   Her sister OTOH commented
>> that had she been in the situation she would have just left herself
>> flat.
>> 
>> Breast augmentation (and most plastic surgery) is ridiculous IMO.   It's
>> a sad commentary on our society that the self-image of many women is
>> completely tied to their appearance.
>> 
>> I don't even color my hair, I've EARNED those gray ones.    :)
>> 
>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 06:19:23 -0400, "Geo."
 wrote in
>> message :
>> 
>> >Well if you had one removed because of cancer?
>> >
>> >But that wasn't my point, it's an acceptable practice in our society yet
>> >it's exactly the sort of thing you were discussing.
>> >
>> >Geo.
>> >
>> >"Ellen K."  wrote in message
>> >news:vgnepvk2cllhn0a66tsja6be8tp0a6qfcl{at}4ax.com...
>> >> What medical benefit would breast augmentation have?
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:58:53 -0400, "Geo."
 wrote in
>> >> message :
>> >>
>> >> >How about breast augmentation?
>> >> >
>> >> >Geo. (gotta be more interesting than circumcision)
>> >> >
>> >> >"Ellen K."
 wrote in message
>> >> >news:4jddpvsei7cu3noo0c2kr2cvaavnelf15p{at}4ax.com...
>> >> >> Genital mutilation would mean removing flesh
and/or organs that
> serve a
>> >> >> function.   Circumcision doesn't qualify since
it only removes skin
>> >> >> which in fact in the uncircumcised can cause
medical problems later
>> >that
>> >> >> end up requiring the procedure.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> An example of male genital mutilation would be
castration, practiced
> in
>> >> >> cultures where a male guard is desired for a
harem and also
> practiced
>> >as
>> >> >> recently and close by as the late 19th century
in Europe to preserve
>> >> >> boys' unchanged voices.   Check out music sites,
you can purchase
>> >> >> recordings of castrati.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:39:08 +0100, Adam Flinton
>> >> >>  wrote in message
> :
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >John Beckett wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> I don't know what is more irritating ...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Adam goading Ellen about genital mutilation, or
>> >> >> >> Rich goading Geo about spam.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Hint: Every tenth post should say
something useful or
> interesting.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> John
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >What like this one?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >BTW I am goading Ellen on "Moral
Absolutism" of which genital
>> >mutilation
>> >> >> >is but one example where it fails.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Adam
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> 

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5