Intactivists will often use inflammatory, emotional, hyperbolic language to try to create controversy where there often isn't regarding circumcision. They want to intentionally change medical terminology to their own incorrect words to twist reality to fit their own.
Circumcision is a medical procedure that removes the foreskin from the penis. It's not amputation, it's not mutilation and it's certainly not organ theft.
The foreskin is not an organ. I repeat.. The foreskin is not an organ. The penis is an organ. The heart is an organ. The entire integumentary system is an organ, but not just the skin comprising the foreskin. If that were true..then every separate piece of skin would all be organs.. The eyelids, the frenulum of the tongue, the scrotum, the earlobes. All organs? Or only the almighty foreskin?
The definition of an organ in relation to biology is as follows:
"A part of an organism that is typically self-contained and has a specific vital function, such as the heart or liver in human."
Vital function is important. I know intactivists like to think the foreskin is vital, but biology proves you wrong. Circumcised males can still procreate. They could not procreate without a penis, which IS an organ. A human could not survive without the skin on their entire bodies. It's because those organs are vital for survival. See how that works?
This is where you shoot yourselves in the foreskin, intactivists. You could do yourself a favor by using terminology that medical professionals use and understanding basic anatomy, that is taught in high school biology. When you exclaim among yourselves "foreskin is skin... And skin is an organ!!duh!".. You make yourselves look like fools. You will not be able to be taken seriously by the people who actually circumcise infants and children if you continue using hyperbole. They will continue to ignore and recoil in your presence, just as the vast majority of AAP attendees did in San Francisco.