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

4. I wrote, "Parents can legally get any part of their child's body cut off if there's any medical necessity to do so..... 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." You wrote, "Bearing logical and ostensibly LEGAL reasons for hygiene, beautification, and conformity, parents choose to have their children's hair cut. Since, hair is a HEALTHY, FUNCTIONAL, and SPECIALIZED ORGAN, with your framework, every parent should be abusing their children, and barbershops, salons, etc., should be culpable for this "abusive" acts and should be faced with lawsuits." How can you even compare cutting off foreskin with cutting off hair? No offence. Hairs and nails grow up again after they are cut off. If a boy's hair or nails are cut off, the boy actually doesn't lose anything and it's not a form of "organ damage". But like all other organs, a foreskin can not grow up again once it's cut off. Cutting off a boy's foreskin forcibly without any medical necessity is a permanent and irreversible damage to the boy's healthy functional genital organ and is a "grievous hurt" crime, a crime as serious as cutting off a child's toe or a girl's clitoral hood (female prepuce) or labia minora under existing penal code. What part of a child's body can the parents legally cut off? Can parents get their child's foot cut off so that the child can earn money begging? Can the parents cut off their child's earlobes, 5th toe, clitoral hood (female prepuce) or labia minora? The short answer is no. But why is this so? The reason is that physical integrity is a fundamental human right as guaranteed by law and parents are not legally authorized to cut off any part of their child's body (no matter what part and no matter the child is a boy or a girl) unless there's any medical necessity to do so. Removal off or damage to any healthy functional organ or gland (no matter what organ or gland) is a "grievous hurt" crime under existing penal code. Since foreskin is a healthy, functional and highly specialized organ and not a birth defect, foreskin is not an exception here. Cutting off a child boy's foreskin forcibly without any medical necessity is a "grievous hurt" crime, a crime as serious as cutting off a child's toe or cutting off a girl's clitoral hood (female prepuce) or labia minora under existing penal code, since it permanently and irreversibly damages a healthy functional organ of a boy's genitals. Forced circumcision has become so established in the society that no victim of forced circumcision is filing a lawsuit against his parents and the offenders. Most of the victims of forced circumcision appreciate their circumcision later in life and force "circumcision" on their sons as well creating a chain reaction of violence. This is why no parents have ever been jailed for forcibly circumcising their child. But does it mean that survivors of forced circumcisions are not victims of violence and criminal offence? Does it mean that forced circumcision is legal? The short answer is no. The offenders of forced circumcision aren't being prosecuted due to lack of lawsuit. For example, if a girl gets raped but doesn't report it to police, how will the offender(s) be prosecuted? Now what will happen if a man files a lawsuit against his parents and the offenders for forcibly circumcising him in his childhood under existing law as his healthy functional organ has been damaged? Let's analyze. Though almost no one is complaining about his forced circumcision, this doesn't mean that forced circumcision is not a crime. For example, "forced marriage" of girls and women is another socially established crime in many pars of Africa, South Asia and throughout the world. Percent of girls who were forced to marry before a certain age- South Asia before the age of 18: 48% Bangladesh before the age of 15: 27.3% Africa before the age of 18: 42% Niger before age of 15: 26% Kyrgyzstan before age of 18: 21.2% Kazakhstan before the age of 18: 14.4% https://en.wikipedia.org... But "forced marriage" is so socially established that almost no girl or woman is filing a lawsuit against their parents for forcing her into an unwanted marriage. Most of the girls and women accept the marriage later in life and force "forced circumcision" on their daughters as well creating a chain reaction of violence. Almost no parents have ever been prosecuted for forcing their daughter into marriage. http://www.independent.co.uk... http://theconversation.com... But does it mean that survivors of "forced marriage" are not victims of violence and criminal offence? Does it mean that "forced marriage" is legal? The short answer is no. Forced breast ironing: Breast ironing is the pounding and massaging of a pubescent girl's breasts, using hard or heated objects, to try to make them stop developing or disappear. It is typically carried out by the girl's mother who will say she is trying to protect the girl from sexual harassment and rape, to prevent early pregnancy that would tarnish the family name, or to allow the girl to pursue education rather than be forced into early marriage. It is mostly practiced in parts of Cameroon, where boys and men may think that girls whose breasts have begun to grow are ready for sex. Some reports suggest that it has spread to the Cameroonian diaspora, for example to that in Britain. https://en.wikipedia.org... No one has ever been prosecuted for carrying out the practice. http://www.theweek.co.uk... http://europe.newsweek.com... http://metro.co.uk... The reason for this is same. No girl has ever filed a lawsuit against her mother for breast ironing. Most of the girls accept "breast ironing" later in life and force "breast ironing" on their daughters as well creating a chain reaction of violence. But does it mean that survivors of "forced breast ironing" are not victims of violence and criminal offence? Does it mean that "forced breast ironing" is legal? The short answer is no. Forced female circumcision: Millions of girls have been become victims of female circumcision. But almost no parents have ever been prosecuted for forcibly circumcising their daughter. http://www.passblue.com... http://www.thejournal.ie... http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... The reason for this is same. Almost no girl files a lawsuit against her parents for forcibly circumcising her. Most of the girls appreciate it later in life and force "female circumcision" on their daughters as well creating a chain reaction of violence. Does it mean that survivors of "foced female circumcision" are not victims of violence and criminal offence? Does it mean that "forced female circumcision" is legal? The short answer is no. The RINJ (Rape Is No Joke) Foundation adduces that female circumcision or female genital mutilation is a "sexual assault" crime and a "crime against humanity". https://rinj.org... According to RINJ Foundation, "female circumcision or female genital mutilation is a crime equal to or greater than rape in its violence and consequences." https://rinj.org... Child marriage: Millions of girls in many Asian and African countries and throughout the world are victims of child marriage. The countries with the highest observed rates of child marriages below the age of 18 are Niger, Chad, Mali, Bangladesh, Guinea and the Central African Republic, with a rate above 60%. Niger, Chad, Bangladesh, Mali and Ethiopia were the countries with child marriage rates greater than 20% below the age of 15, according to 2003-2009 surveys. https://en.wikipedia.org... But almost no parents are being convicted for forcing their child daughters into marriage. The reason is same. Almost no girl files a lawsuit against her parents for forcing her into an unwanted marriage in her childhood. Most of the girls accept the marriage later in life and force "child marriage" on her daughter as well creating a chain reaction of violence. Does it mean that the survivors of "child marriage" are not victims of violence and criminal offence? Does it mean that "child marriage" is legal? The short answer is no. Forced prostitution: Millions of girls have been forced into prostitution in the brothels in Asian countries like India, Bangladesh, Japan, North Korea; in Middle Eastern countries like Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Iran and throughout the world. https://en.wikipedia.org... Almost no girl or woman there in those brothels has entered this profession at her own wish. The girls and women were brought to the brothel, they were held in the brothel and were forced into prostitution. They were raped and tortured to become prostitutes. Now they have become prostitutes and they have no problem with prostitution anymore. Even when a new girl is brought in the brothel, they force the new girl to become prostitute, they torture the girl and get the girl raped instead of helping her to escape from there even if they themselves are victims of torture, rape and violence. Even though the prostitutes in the brothels have no problem with prostitution now, does it mean that they are not victims of violence and crime?