Circumcision advocate: Difference between revisions

Line 6:

== Contradiction in terms ==

Virtually all of the leading medical associations around the world agree that [[circumcision]] in children almost never has a medical indication. Nevertheless, it is significant that the circumcision advocates try again and again with sophistry and fallacious aurguments to pretend seriousness on the subject: They claim to take a "neutral" point of view and list the [[Arguments pro circumcision|alleged advantages of genital mutilation]] alongside the disadvantages, although they regularly only touch on the latter, not but show that they want to describe them completely.

Virtually all of the leading medical associations around the world agree that [[circumcision]] in children almost never has a [[medical indication]]. Nevertheless, it is significant that the circumcision advocates try again and again with sophistry and fallacious aurguments to pretend seriousness on the subject: They claim to take a "neutral" point of view and list the [[Arguments pro circumcision|alleged advantages of genital mutilation]] alongside the disadvantages, although they regularly only touch on the latter, not but show that they want to describe them completely.

Since, according to the current state of science and medical ethics, there is no medical justification for foreskin [[amputation]], there can be no advantages for the affected boy. Therefore, many circumcision advocates expose themselves to this allegedly "neutral" point of view from the outset.

Line 94:

== No choice for human rights violations ==

The approach of all websites and pages listed here, that it is reliably a parental choice whether to have a healthy child's healthy [[foreskin]] amputated without medical indication for any reason, disregards the legal fact that there is no choice as to whether or not to commit [[human rights]] abuses. Medically not indicated amputation of any part of a child's body is illegal by definition and cannot be legalized by parental agreements. Therefore, all information on these websites and pages should be viewed as fundamentally critical, if not as a call for human rights violations.

The approach of all websites and pages listed here, that it is reliably a parental choice whether to have a healthy child's healthy [[foreskin]] amputated without [[medical indication]] for any reason, disregards the legal fact that there is no choice as to whether or not to commit [[human rights]] abuses. Medically not indicated amputation of any part of a child's body is illegal by definition and cannot be legalized by parental agreements. Therefore, all information on these websites and pages should be viewed as fundamentally critical, if not as a call for human rights violations.

[[Peter W. Adler|Adler]] (2022) layed out in his comprehensive legal treatise [[Circumcision Is A Fraud: And The Coming Legal Reckoning]]: There is no legal basis for parents to consent to the irreversible amputation of healthy parts of their children's bodies without a compelling and urgent medical indication.

[[Peter W. Adler|Adler]] (2022) layed out in his comprehensive legal treatise [[Circumcision Is A Fraud: And The Coming Legal Reckoning]]: There is no legal basis for parents to consent to the irreversible amputation of healthy parts of their children's bodies without a compelling and urgent [[medical indication]].

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 == Contradiction in terms ==
-Virtually all of the leading medical associations around the world agree that [[circumcision]] in children almost never has a medical indication. Nevertheless, it is significant that the circumcision advocates try again and again with sophistry and fallacious aurguments to pretend seriousness on the subject: They claim to take a "neutral" point of view and list the [[Arguments pro circumcision|alleged advantages of genital mutilation]] alongside the disadvantages, although they regularly only touch on the latter, not but show that they want to describe them completely.
+Virtually all of the leading medical associations around the world agree that [[circumcision]] in children almost never has a [[medical indication]]. Nevertheless, it is significant that the circumcision advocates try again and again with sophistry and fallacious aurguments to pretend seriousness on the subject: They claim to take a "neutral" point of view and list the [[Arguments pro circumcision|alleged advantages of genital mutilation]] alongside the disadvantages, although they regularly only touch on the latter, not but show that they want to describe them completely.
 Since, according to the current state of science and medical ethics, there is no medical justification for foreskin [[amputation]], there can be no advantages for the affected boy. Therefore, many circumcision advocates expose themselves to this allegedly "neutral" point of view from the outset.
@@ Line 94: / Line 94: @@
 == No choice for human rights violations ==
-The approach of all websites and pages listed here, that it is reliably a parental choice whether to have a healthy child's healthy [[foreskin]] amputated without medical indication for any reason, disregards the legal fact that there is no choice as to whether or not to commit [[human rights]] abuses. Medically not indicated amputation of any part of a child's body is illegal by definition and cannot be legalized by parental agreements. Therefore, all information on these websites and pages should be viewed as fundamentally critical, if not as a call for human rights violations.
+The approach of all websites and pages listed here, that it is reliably a parental choice whether to have a healthy child's healthy [[foreskin]] amputated without [[medical indication]] for any reason, disregards the legal fact that there is no choice as to whether or not to commit [[human rights]] abuses. Medically not indicated amputation of any part of a child's body is illegal by definition and cannot be legalized by parental agreements. Therefore, all information on these websites and pages should be viewed as fundamentally critical, if not as a call for human rights violations.
-[[Peter W. Adler|Adler]] (2022) layed out in his comprehensive legal treatise [[Circumcision Is A Fraud: And The Coming Legal Reckoning]]: There is no legal basis for parents to consent to the irreversible amputation of healthy parts of their children's bodies without a compelling and urgent medical indication.
+[[Peter W. Adler|Adler]] (2022) layed out in his comprehensive legal treatise [[Circumcision Is A Fraud: And The Coming Legal Reckoning]]: There is no legal basis for parents to consent to the irreversible amputation of healthy parts of their children's bodies without a compelling and urgent [[medical indication]].
 {{SEEALSO}}