O
opop
Guest
I know the natural law forbids mutilation (except in medical cases, like the amputation of an infected limb). So I was wondering why ear piercing is not considered as mutilation. If the argument is that it doesn’t affect bodily functions, then we could as well cut the whole earlobe and some other little parts of the body (external or internal) that do not have any real function and it would still not be considered mutilation. And this would not be considered mutilation either, because she didn’t impede any of her bodily functions: https://goo.gl/images/K5ReSy
However this doesn’t sound right. So it seems to me that there is no reason to consider ear piercing as an acceptable exception, and that mutilation is what it is: any distortion of one’s normal and natural conformity of the body.
At best we could argue perhaps that ear piercing is only a venial sin and not a grave sin.
Any thoughts? Or did I miss something?
However this doesn’t sound right. So it seems to me that there is no reason to consider ear piercing as an acceptable exception, and that mutilation is what it is: any distortion of one’s normal and natural conformity of the body.
At best we could argue perhaps that ear piercing is only a venial sin and not a grave sin.
Any thoughts? Or did I miss something?
Last edited: