Amazon.com Widgets

Circumcision is not a form of cosmetic medical procedure, it's rather a form of "organ damage" by both medical and legal definition

Asked by: gengo002
  • Circumcision is not a form of cosmetic medical procedure, it's rather a form of "organ damage" by both medical and legal definition

    Non-therapeutic circumcision involves removal of foreskin, a healthy functional highly specialized organ, without any medical necessity. Removal of a healthy, functional organ without any medical necessity is a violation of fundamental medical principles. If a healthy functional organ (no matter what organ) of a person is cut off even with the informed consent of the person, the procedure will not be a cosmetic medical procedure and will rather be an "organ damage" both by medical and legal definition. For example, if a person asks a doctor to cut off his foot so that he can earn money begging, if the doctor cuts off his foot even with his informed consent, the procedure will not be a "cosmetic medical procedure" and will rather be an "organ damage" both by medical and legal definition.
    Similarly, if parents ask a doctor to cut off their child's earlobes, 5th toe or their child daughter's clitoral hood (female prepuce) or labia minora, if the doctor performs the operation even with the consent of the parents, the procedure will not be a "cosmetic medical procedure" and will rather be an "organ damage" by both medical and legal definition.
    Neither medical science nor the existing law allows removal of or damage to any healthy functional organ. Since foreskin is a healthy functional and highly specialized organ like toes, earlobes, clitoral hood (female prepuce), labia minora, cutting off foreskin is not an exception here. Cutting off foreskin without any medical necessity causes permanent and irreversible damage to a boy's genital organ that violets the fundamental medical principles and is not a form of "cosmetic medical procedure" and is rather an "organ damage" under both medical and legal definition. A cosmetic medical procedure should never involve removal of or damage to a healthy functional organ. So, therefore, circumcision is a medical procedure only when it's done for a medical necessity, otherwise, it should be an "organ damage".
    Furthermore, removal of or damage to a healthy functional organ (no matter what organ) is a "grievous bodily harm" crime under existing penal code. Since foreskin is a healthy functional and highly specialized organ like toes, clitoral hood (female prepuce), labia minora and not a "birth defect", cutting off foreskin is not an exception here.
    If parents cut off their child's foreskin without any medical necessity, it will be a "grievous bodily harm" crime, a crime as serious as cutting off a child's toe or a girl's clitoral hood (female prepuce) or labia minora.
    So non therapeutic circumcision is already illegal under existing law.
    We know that no parents have ever been prosecuted for circumcising their child. But it doesn't mean that circumcision is legal under existing law. Parents are not being prosecuted because no one is filing a lawsuit against his parents for circumcising him as a child.
    But if a boy who was circumcised as a child becomes intactivist later and files "grievous bodily damage" (damage to a healthy functional organ) charge against his parents, the parents will be jailed.

  • Circumcision is not a form of cosmetic medical procedure, it's rather a form of "organ damage" by both medical and legal definition

    Non-therapeutic circumcision involves removal of foreskin, a healthy functional highly specialized organ, without any medical necessity. Removal of a healthy, functional organ without any medical necessity is a violation of fundamental medical principles. If a healthy functional organ (no matter what organ) of a person is cut off even with the informed consent of the person, the procedure will not be a cosmetic medical procedure and will rather be an "organ damage" both by medical and legal definition. For example, if a person asks a doctor to cut off his foot so that he can earn money begging, if the doctor cuts off his foot even with his informed consent, the procedure will not be a "cosmetic medical procedure" and will rather be an "organ damage" both by medical and legal definition.
    Similarly, if parents ask a doctor to cut off their child's earlobes, 5th toe or their child daughter's clitoral hood (female prepuce) or labia minora, if the doctor performs the operation even with the consent of the parents, the procedure will not be a "cosmetic medical procedure" and will rather be an "organ damage" by both medical and legal definition.
    Neither medical science nor the existing law allows removal of or damage to any healthy functional organ. Since foreskin is a healthy functional and highly specialized organ like toes, earlobes, clitoral hood (female prepuce), labia minora, cutting off foreskin is not an exception here. Cutting off foreskin without any medical necessity causes permanent and irreversible damage to a boy's genital organ that violets the fundamental medical principles and is not a form of "cosmetic medical procedure" and is rather an "organ damage" under both medical and legal definition. A cosmetic medical procedure should never involve removal of or damage to a healthy functional organ. So, therefore, circumcision is a medical procedure only when it's done for a medical necessity, otherwise, it should be an "organ damage".
    Furthermore, removal of or damage to a healthy functional organ (no matter what organ) is a "grievous bodily harm" crime under existing penal code. Since foreskin is a healthy functional and highly specialized organ like toes, clitoral hood (female prepuce), labia minora and not a "birth defect", cutting off foreskin is not an exception here.
    If parents cut off their child's foreskin without any medical necessity, it will be a "grievous bodily harm" crime, a crime as serious as cutting off a child's toe or a girl's clitoral hood (female prepuce) or labia minora.
    So non therapeutic circumcision is already illegal under existing law.
    We know that no parents have ever been prosecuted for circumcising their child. But it doesn't mean that circumcision is legal under existing law. Parents are not being prosecuted because no one is filing a lawsuit against his parents for circumcising him as a child.
    But if a boy who was circumcised as a child becomes intactivist later and files "grievous bodily damage" (damage to a healthy functional organ) charge against his parents, the parents will be jailed.

  • It's wrong to circumcise a child, unless for religious reasons.

    Boys should not get circumcised, unless required by their current religion.
    I mean, if it's a boy and it's religious or the mother's choice, that's okay.
    But if it's a girl, than that's not okay. I mean, some countries already have laws
    against female genital mutilation, but it still happens.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.