If the ceremony isn’t about the circumcision, why do it at all? The bloodless naming ceremony is fine for the girls, why not for the boys?
He has a website for non-Jews that’s actually called – get this – “Holistic Circumcision,” sort of like ‘military intelligence.’
“I don’t like being circumcised; I don’t like it at all.” JT, in his own words
‘Regular’ people are allowed to mutilate baby boys any time or place, under cover of a religious title, under no scrutiny of the government or the medical profession. You too can sexually abuse and mutilate baby boys – just say it’s being done for ‘religious’ reasons.
Watch Georganne Chapin of IntactAmerica tell her story of intactivism and why male genital mutilation is so wrong.
I’d like to remind the doctor that the infant with the genitals to be cut most likely would not agree to this at this time or ever, despite all the “meaning and feeling for all of us adults.”
Exposure to children vs. genital mutilation: “it is probably not a good idea to have the newborn baby undergoing the ceremony exposed so early in its life to so many young children.”
Circumcision or Freedom – You Can’t Have Both!
The unethical practice of allowing parents to consent for their infant boy to MGM is illegal and immoral, and something parents should think about.
The doctor is wrong about the baby having no memory of the event; he has no idea what effect this unneeded assault on a newborn has on the baby’s mental and physical development as no studies have been done in these areas.
The doctor says “you must carefully consider the benefits and risks,” except no one gave parents a right by proxy to force elective permanent surgery on an infant. It’s like saying “he’s a Democrat” or “he’s a Republican” – stupid, right? Except here it’s mutilation.
No, there is no “best age” to be genitally mutilated without your permission, and it would be safe to say 100% of infants strapped into the “Circumstraint” would agree.