Forced circumcision of older minors practiced in many Asian, African and Muslim countries is a crime

In many Asian, African and Muslim countries (e.g. Philippines, Bangladesh, etc.), boys are circumcised in their childhood and not in infancy. Most of the boys are circumcised by illiterate traditional circumcisers making the procedure nothing but a physical damage & not a medical procedure. Most of the boys are circumcised forcibly against their will that is a human rights violation. In our opinion, this is a crime under existing law. So therefore there is no need to ban circumcision specifically and the parents and offenders of forced circumcision can be prosecuted under existing law if the victim files a case. Physical integrity is a fundamental human right as guaranteed by law. For example, parents can legally get their child's foot cut off if there's any medical emergency to do so (e.g. the child's foot is totally damaged from a car accident and there are chances of developing fatal infections from the foot). But parents can't legally get their child's foot cut off so that the child can earn money begging. If the parents do so, they will be charged for physical damage crime under existing law. Parents can legally get any part of their child's body cut off if there's any medical necessity to do so. For example, if a child girl developed serious infection in her earlobe following ear piercing that requires the earlobe to be surgically removed, parents can legally get the earlobe of the child cut off. But parents can't get earlobe of their healthy child cut off. If they do so, they will be charged for physical damage crime under existing law. Since foreskin is not a birth defect and is a healthy, functional and highly specialized organ like an earlobe or any other body part, cutting off foreskin from a healthy boy for non medical reasons is a physical damage crime under existing law for obvious reasons. The so called benefits are not an excuse for non medical circumcision. All of those medical conditions circumcision is thought to prevent are rare medical conditions. Decreasing the risks of some rare medical conditions isn't a huge benefit. Let only a small percentage of boys will develop any of those medical conditions circumcision is thought to prevent. So if we circumcise random healthy boys only a small percentage of the boys will get the so called benefits of circumcision. So when we circumcise a random healthy boy chances are very slim that he will get any of the so called benefits of circumcision. But when we circumcise a random healthy boy, chances are 100% that he will get the harms of circumcision. For example, he will lose the functions of his prepuce or foreskin permanently (it's 100% sure). He will get his glans desensetized (it's 100% sure). He will lose 20000 nerve endings and a very sensitive part of his penis and an erogenous zone of his penis (it's 100% sure). He will lose the normal natural mechanism of intercourse, e.g. the gliding action or frequent movement of foreskin during intercourse (it's 100% sure). He will lose his frenulum, one of the most sensitive parts of the penis (frenulum is removed in 30% of circumcision on average, so it's 30% sure). Furthermore foreskin contains 20000 touch sensitive nerve endings. No other part in our body has so much nerve endings in so small area. Foreskin has the highest nerve density not only in the penis, but also in all over the human body. The clitories is on the 2nd place having 8000 nerve endings according to nerve density ranking. The entire human penis has 24000 nerve endings. Among them the glans has 4000 nerve endings and the foreskin has the rest of 20000 nerve endings. Foreskin is not a birth defect, it's not a vestigial or redundant skin. It's a highly specialized organ and an essential part of the penis in it's functions and importance like the eyelids are essential parts of eyes in it's functions and importance. Foreskin is a very sensitive part of human penis and is an erogenous zone of male genitals. Circumcision eliminates an erogenous zone of male genitals. Circumcision can cause many complications including death as well. The rate of complications are 2% for infants and 6% for older boys. But I think there is no need to discuss about those complications. The harms of circumcision that will affect 100% of circumcised boys are great enough. The harms of circumcision (and not the risks or complications) outweigh any so called benefits of circumcision 100 to 1. So, therefore, the so called benefits of circumcision is not an excuse for non medical circumcision. Parents can save more boys from breast cancer than penile cancer by cutting of the boy's breasts (breast cancer in men is more common than penile cancer). Parents can save more girls from labia cancer than penile cancer by cutting off labia minora of their child girl (labia cancer is twice as common as penile cancer). Removal of labia minora can have some more benefits. For example, some girls have large labia that causes pain during intercourse and in those cases the girls have to undergo a surgical procedure called labiaplasty for labia minoa reduction or removal. Some girls may develop chronic irritation of labia minora from tight clothing, sports activity etc. Girls produce 10 times as much smegma as boys produce that gets trapped in the labia folds creating an warm and moist environment, an ideal environment for bacterial groth. So parents can save their girls from infections by cutting off labia minora from their child girls. Furthermore, since the smegma the girls produce gets trapped in the labia folds, cutting of labia minora will improve the genital hygiene of the girl. The inside of the vagina is always warm and moist creating an ideal environment for bactetrial growth. So can parents legally cut off their child girl's birtholin gland so that the girl doesn't produce so much vaginal fluid and doesn't get an infection? Can parents legally cut off appendix of their child so that the child doesn't develop appendicitis later in life. Can parents legally pull 2nd molar teeth of their child so that the child doesn't develop dental cavities or tooth decay later in life? Pulling the 2nd molar teeth has potential benefits. You don't have to worry about oral hygiene or brushing teeth everyday. And you will be less likely to develop dental cavities or tooth decay. Female circumcision has a potential medical benefit as well. It prevents HIV and all other STDs. Female circumcision is done in order to decrease the sexual desires of the girls and to control the girls. The most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs is sexual abstinence or refraining from sexual activity outside marriage or a monogamous relationship. Since female circumcision helps girls keep refraining from sexual activities, it's an effective way to prevent HIV and any other STDs. Can the benefits mentioned above be seen as medical benefits? If not, how can the so called benefits of circumcision be seen as medical benefits? Does cutting off any body part (not only the foreskin), lets say an earlobe for non medical reasons meet the fundamental medical ethical principles? Is foreskin the only body part that gets diseases or infections? Or do our other body parts get diseases or infections as well? Should we cut off other body parts as well to prevent diseases or infections? Why only foreskin? Do you think foreskin is a birth defect? Isn't foreskin a healthy functional organ? Please explain. Finally there is no need to ban circumcision with any specific law. Circumcision for non medical reasons is already a criminal offence under existing law. In 2012, a German court ruled circumcision is a "bodily harm" and is a violation of fundamental human right to physical integrity, so, therefore is illegal under existing German law and ordered all future circumcisions for non medical reasons to be prevented in Germany. The ruling by the district court of Cologne says circumcision "for the purpose of religious upbringing constitutes a violation of physical integrity". The judgement added: "The child's body is permanently and irreparably changed by the circumcision. This change conflicts with the child's interest of later being able to make his own decision on his religious affiliation." The court decided that circumcision was illegal but that the doctor couldn't have been expected to have known this. It had been done for so long that it seemed legal when - according to the court - it wasn't. Reference: http://www.bbc.com... Removal of or damage to any healthy functional organ or gland is a "Physical damage" crime under existing law. So it's not required to ban each and every physical damage crimes separately. For example, cutting off earlobe of a healthy child is not banned with any specific law. But no need to ban such crimes separately specifically. Cutting off earlobe of a healthy child is already a criminal offence under "Physical damage" law as it involves removal of or damage to a healthy functional organ or gland. Similarly circumcision of healthy boys is a criminal offence under "Physical damage" law for obvious reasons since it involves removal of or damage to a healthy functional organ or gland considering foreskin a healthy functional and highly specialized organ and not a birth defect. So therefore, there is no need to ban such "Physical damage" crimes separately with any specific law. Since there is no need to ban "cutting off earlobe" separately with any specific law, there is no need to ban circumcision separately with any specific law as well for same reason. Both of the crimes are "physical damage" crimes and a violation of the human right to physical integrity, a fundamental human right as guaranteed by law. Foreskin is a healthy functional and highly specialized organ like the earlobe and not a birth defect. So cutting off foreskin from a healthy boy is as serious crime as cutting off earlobe from a healthy child. Should be continued in 2nd round